'u^. aw/^-^'T?/^
LOUIS PATRICK GRAY III
^3^^—
HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE
NINETY-THIRD CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
NOMINATION OF LOUIS PATRICK GRAY III, OF CONNECTICUT,
TO BE DIRECTOR, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
FEBRUARY 28; MARCH 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 20, 21, AND 22, 1973
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
U. S. Government Documents Depositor)'
Franklin Pierce Law Ceiiter Library
D35SB gift
Boste'^ '^'^^"^^ ybrary
Boston, yw„M y2116
LOUIS PATRICK GRAY III
HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE
NINETY-THIED CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
NOMINATION OF LOUIS PATRICK GRAY III, OF CONNECTICUT,
TO BE DIRECTOR, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
FEBRUARY 28, MARCH 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 20, 21, and 22, 1973
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
91-331 WASHINGTON : 1973
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents,
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, U.G. 20402
Price $3.45 Domestic postpaid or $3.00 GPO Bookstore
Stock Number 5270-01304
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
JAMES O. EASTLAND, Mississippi, Chairman
JOHN L. McCLELLAN, Arkansas ROMAN L. HRIiSKA, Nebraska
SAM J. ERVIN, Jr., North Carolina HIRAM L. FONG, Hawaii
PHILIP A. HART, Michigan HUGH SCOTT, Pennsylvania
EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts STROM THURMOND, South Carolina
BIRCH BAYH, Indiana MARLOW W. COOK, Kentucky
QUENTIN N. BURDICK, North Dakota CHARLES McC. MATHIAS, Jr., Maryland
ROBERT C.BYRD, West Virginia EDWARD J. GURNEY, Florida
JOHN V. TUNNEY, CaUfornia
(II)
CONTENTS
Wednesday, February 28, 1973
Page
Abraham Ribicoff, U.S. Senator from Connecticut 1
Lowell P. Weicker, Jr., U.S. Senator from Connecticut 2
Louis Patrick Gra}^ III, nominee to be Director, Federal Bureau of In-
vestigation 4
David D. Kinley, executive assistant to the Acting Director of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation 76
Thursday, March 1, 1973
Louis Patrick Graj' III 147
Tuesday, March 6, 1973
Louis Patrick Gray III 2SG
Wednesday, March 7, 1973
Louis Patrick Gray III 305
Thursday, March 8, 1973
Louis Patrick Gray III 37.")
Friday, March 9, 1973
Edward I. Koch, a Representative in Congress from New York 435
Joseph L. Rauh, Jr., Americans for Democratic Action, accompanied b}'
Theodore H. Bornstein 444
Norman Dorsen, chairman. Committee for Public Justice, accompanied by
Leon Friedman, executive director. Committee for Public Justice, and
Stephen Gillers 462
Jack Anderson, newspaper columnist 476
Leslie H. Whitten, Jr., assistant to Jack Anderson 481
Hank Adams, national director. Survival of American Indians Association. 515
Edward Scheldt, Reston, Va 538
Monday, March 12, 1973
Stephen I. Schlossberg, general counsel, United Automobile Workers 541
Edward Scheldt, Reston, Va 554
Tuesday, March 20, 1973
Louis Patrick Grav III 575
David D. Kinley_l 591
Wednesday, March 21, 1973
Louis Patrick Gray III 607
Thursday, March 22, 1973
Louis Patrick Gray III 661
(m)
NOMINATION OF LOUIS PATRICK GRAY III
WEDNESDAY, FEBKUARY 28, 1973
U.S. Senate,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, D.C.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:45 a.m., in room 1202,
Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator James O. Eastland (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Eastland, McClelhan, Er^'in, Hart, Kenned}^,
Bayh, Byrd of West Virginia, Tunney, Hruska, Fong, Scott, Thur-
mond, Cook and Gurney.
Also present: John H. Holloman, chief counsel, and Francis C.
Rosenberger, Peter Stcckett, and Thomas D. Hart, prolessional
staff members.
The Chairman. These hearings are on the nomination of L.
Patrick Gray III, to be Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation.
Senator Ribicoff.
STATEMENT OF HON. ABKAHAM RIBICOFF, A U.S. SENATOR FROM
CONNECTICUT
Senator Ribicoff. Air. Chairman, we, in Connecticut, are proud
of Pat Gray, and so am I. ¥ve, in Connecticut, respect Pat Graj', and
so do I.
Mr. Chairman, I have kno^vn Pat Gray for many years. I have
always found him to be a man of outstanding abihty, character, and
integrity. Every job that Pat Gray has performed he has performed
Axdth excellence. There is no question in my mmd that Pat Gra}'- is a
dedicated public servent who vnW perform any task assigned to him
in a nonpartisan manner. I respect the FBI, and the entire Nation
respects the FBI. The FBI is one of the great law enforcement institu-
tions in America. All of us know that when youngsters come to visit
Washington, one of the first places they want to see is the FBI.
There is no question in my mind that as Director of the FBI, Mr
Gra}'' will perform his tasks on a completely nonpartisan basis. In all
the years I have kno^\Tl Pat Gray he has never questioned the civil
rights of individuals and the protection of constitutional guarantees.
M}^ feeling is that only the criminal has much to fear from Patrick
Gray, and that the law-abiding citizen has nothing to fear from Pat
Gray. He Vv'ill be a defender of om* rights, a defender of the Consti-
tution, and law enforcement in this Nation \y\\\ be stronger Avith Pat
Gvory as Director of the FBI. He has my unqualified support.
(1)
2
I am proud that Pat Gray is a citizen of Connecticut, and I am most
jileased that the President of the United States has seen fit to appoint
Pat Gray Director of the FBI.
The Chairman. Any questions?
Senator Weicker.
STATEMENT OF HON. LOWELL P. WEICKER, JE., A U.S. SENATOR
FROM CONNECTICUT
Senator Weicker. Thank you very much, ^Nfr. Chairman. I cer-
tainly associate myself with all that Senator Ribicoff has said. In
addition I have a few other comments.
Pat Gray comes to your committee as a man of very broad experi-
ence, fortunately not just in the law but as a man who has served
in the service as a Navy man, and as a man who went to law school,
as a man who served as a lawyer, as a man who served in HEW, as a
man who served in the Attorney General's office. In other words,
one ^vdlose life has touched upon many aspects of the American
experience, and I think that is a good thing for one who is going to
lead the FBI. He has not been in one narrow^ area of activity.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I would like to comment upon an innuendo
that has been made about this man of which I have firsthand knowl-
edge. There appeared in Time magazine a column devoted to Pat
Gray and in that column the following paragi^aph appears :
Much of the Senate opposition to Gray is rooted in his lack of law enforcement
experience. Gray, who became a lawyer while on active duty with the Navy
in 1949, retired after 20 3'ears military service in 1960. He was nominated for a
federal judgeship but because of his meager qualifications the nomination was
withdrawn before the American Bar Association could officially act upon it.
And in the same paragraph, I don't really know what this has to
do with the lead sentence :
He and Nixon had met at a Washington cocktail party in 1947 and the two have
been on friendly terms ever since.
I would like to du-ect my comments to the innuendo that is con-
tained in that paragraph of lack of legal qualifications. On November
23, 1971, 1 wrote to the then Attorney General, John Mitchell,
recommending Pat Gray to a vacancy on the second circuit court of
appeals, and I will make that letter available to your committee.
In January 1972, the Deputy Attorney General, Mr. Kleindienst,
wrote a letter to the standing committee on the federal judiciary
of the American Bar Association requesting that an informal report
on Pat Gray be compiled.
Now, prior to that report being compiled Pat's name was with-
drawn as, in fact, he was being nominated for the Office of Deputy
Attorney General.
Now, No. 1 : Your committee knows full well that Pat Gray was
never nominated for anything. Now let's get to the business of the
American Bar Association. Mr. Albert Connolly of Cravath, Swaine,
& Moore, New York, was designated by the ABA to investigate
Mr. Gray's qualifications. He stated, in reading over the personal
data questionnaire between February 1 and February 9, that he
decided ]\tr. Gray had more backgiound in Washington and should
be evaluated there.
Therefore, on February 9, he called Mr. Charles Horsky of Covmg-
ton and Burlmg here m Washmgton and transferred the evaluation to
hun. That was all that was done on Mr, Gra3^'s nomination before
February 16, when the nomination was withdra%Mi. Mr. Connolly
called Mr. Horsky on Februarj^ 16, and told him to stop the evaluation
because Mr. Gray's nomination had been withdrawn. Mr. Horsky
said that was okay because he had not done anything on it anyway.
Now that is the record, substantiated b}^ correspondence and by the
individuals.
I am ashamed, quite frankly, that this kind of innuendo and implica-
tion is contamed in a magazine that really had its beginnmgs in the
State of Connecticut so far as personnel were concerned, because if
that is the status of reportmg, it certainh^ is a far cry from the great
reporting that built Time, Inc.
Point No. 2 : The political role that Mr. Gray played. He does belong
to the Republican Party as do I, and I have certainly been active
durmg the past dozen j^ears in Republican politics in the State of
Connecticut and I have never heard of Pat Gray's role in the Republi-
can Party, or Republican politics in the State of Connecticut. He
plaj^s no role and has never plaj'ed a role in Republican politics in the
State of Connecticut. So I tliink we can throw that out the window
as being innuendo.
And lastly, Mr. Chau*man, we come to what I consider to be, and
I am sure the members of the committee also, the No. 1 issue that
confronts the entire Congress and the executive branch, and that is
the integrity of thought and the integrit}^ of practice within this
great democracy of ours and it is very much under test at this moment
in time.
I don't think I have to review my credentials insofar as my total
belief in a press free to tell us everything that is gomg on around us in
this countr}'. And I also believe very firmh^ in law enforcement free
of politics, and I certainly believe in a political system where its
participants are free from dishonesty of thought or deed. Let me say
right now in relation to the Select Committee that I serve on with the
distinguished Senator from North Carolina, commonly referred to as
the Watergate Committee, if one-tenth of Avhat I keep on reading is
true in relation to some of the activities of ray own party, God help
the person or persons who either participated dnectly or indirectl}' in
what I consider to be an American disgrace and a Republican shame,
and I very much believe, Mr. Chairman, in the untarnished American
dream.
Now insofar as Pat Gray's relation to these personal beliefs of mine,
I believe he is a man of absolute mtegrity, and I believe he is a man of
intellectual capacity, and I know that he believes not only in the words
of the Constitution and the laws of this Nation, but the spirit, and I
think that is even more important nowadaj^s.
And I think that should your committee and the Congress see fit
to appoint this man that he will exercise a leadership in the FBI that
is on behalf of all Americans.
Thank you very much.
The Chair:man. Do I understand from you that consideration of
him for appointment to the circuit court of appeals was A\T.thdrawn
because he was to be nomhiated for Deputy Attorney General?
4
Senator Weicker. ]Mr. Chairman, I am glad you raised this point.
It sUpped my mind. It has been a well known fact that for the past 9
months I have made no move to fill this vacancy on the second circuit
court of appeals, pending the decision of the President whether or not
to nominate Pat Gray to the Directorship of the FBI. I have held it
open. Would I take that course of action if I had known that the man
had been rejected by the ABA in an earlier evaluation? I am glad 3^ou
asked the question and that is the answer and I think it speaks for
itself.
Senator Ribicoff. Mr. Chairman, may I add that Senator Weicker
had talked to me some time ago about recommending Mr. Gray to
the second circuit court, which covers our State of Connecticut. At
that time I told Senator Weicker that as far as I was concerned I had
the highest regard for Patrick Gray and I would enthusiasticall}''
support the proposal of Senator Weicker. Subseciuentl}^ I was told by
Senator Weicker, and also in a kidding manner by Pat Gray, that he
had been nominated for the Deput}'' Attorney Generalship and was
going to take that instead of taking the life security of the second
circuit court. He felt that if the President wanted him to serve in
that capacity, he would so serve. So I reaffirm the statements of my
colleague. Senator Weicker, concerning Patrick Gray on the second
cu'cuit court.
The Chairman. Anj' questions, gentlemen?
Thank you.
Senator Weicker. Thank 3^ou.
The Chairman. Do 3^ou solemnly swear the testimony you are
about to give is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth,
so help you God?
TESTIMONY OF LOUIS PATRICK GRAY III, NOMINEE TO BE
DIRECTOR, EEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Mr, Gray, I do, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Now, a^ou have a prepared statement.
Mr. Gray. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Do you want to go through that statement before
any questions are asked of you?
Mr. Gray. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Y^ou Tnay proceed.
Mr. Gray. Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, I am
pri^dleged and honored to appear before this distinguished committee
of the U.S. Senate.
The President has seen fit to send my name to the U.S. Senate, and
the Senate now has the responsibilit}^ — and for the first time the
opportunity — to advise and consent to the nomination of the Director
of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
The President has made his decision and now the U.S. Senate sets
out to discharge its responsibility to examine into my Cjualifications
and work its will in reaching a decision.
With regard to my background and professional qualifications, Mr.
Chairman, I have sent to each member of the committee a copy of
my responses to a personal data questionnaire of the American Bar
Association prepared by me when it was believed that I might be
considered for an appointment to the Federal judiciary. I thought
these might be helpful to the Senators, since the questions of the ABA
were searching and my responses detailed and documented with
exhibits.
Also, for the first time, the Senate has the opportunity to inquire
into and evaluate the manner in which a man other than John Edgar
Hoover has discharged the responsibilities and exercised the power of
this great office.
But fn"st, Mr. Chairman, I wish to state a few of my basic beliefs
that I consider to be directly related to the manner in which I have
performed nw duties these last 10 months and in which I will perform
my duties in the months and 3''ears that lie ahead.
I believe in the United States of America, not only as a nation and a
people, but as an ideal that has helped to reshape the world.
I beheve in the democratic form of government, and in the sover-
eignty of the people.
I believe in a government of law, enacted by the people through
their representatives, and not in a government of men. I believe that
where this kind of law ends, tyrann}^ begins, and I believe that the
people have the right and the duty to oppose such tyranny.
I believe that individual constitutional rights are basic to our
society and our form of government, and I include not only the rights
of the accused to the full protection of the law, but also the rights of
all citizens to have that same protection.
I believe that it is possible for popular government to protect
itself from overthrow without den3-ing basic freedoms, and I consider
that one of the principal responsibilities of the FBI and its Director
is to prove that this can be done.
I believe in the FBI as a vital American institution. When it is
criticized, I will look into the charges to determine whether they
have any validit}''. And if they do, I will make the changes necessary
to maintain the FBI's posture as the finest investigatory agency in
the world. If they are not valid, I will defend the FBI with all the
personal energies and capabilities at my command.
I did not ask the Attorne}^ General or the President to place me in
the position of Acting Director on May 3, 1972, nor did I ask anyone
else to intercede for me. I believed then and I believe now that the
position of Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation seeks
the man and not vice versa.
I said then and I say today that my appointment as Acting Du'ector
was accepted by me and interpreted by me as a return to the service
of my country, a return to the service of all the people of the United
States whom I had served so long in the U.S. Navy without regard to
party, to politics, or to ideology.
I am aware of, and humbled b}'', the responsibilities, as well as the
power, of the office I have occupied during the last 10 months. But, I
am not afraid of the responsibilities, nor do I fear to use the power
in the national interest and in keeping ^^dth constitutional safe-
guards. Every decision I have made has been considered carefull}^,
and I have approached each with a sense of humility.
The record of performance is there. I accept, Mr. Chairman, full
responsibility for that record.
No one can doubt the tremendous challenge inherent in following
the footsteps and building on the legacy of John Edgar Hoover, whose
6
personal vision and ideals, and whose leadership, made the FBI an
institution respected and honored by millions of our fellow citizens.
Thomas Jefferson said of Benjamin Franklin, "I succeed him; no
one could replace him."
I could and do say the same about Mr. Hoover. If ollow him in a
position of great responsibility to our people and to our Nation. He,
together with the men and women of the FBI who served A\dth him
during the years 1924 to 1972, created and built a magnificent organi-
zation devoted to the service of our country.
I welcome this opportunity to set forth for the committee, the
Senate, and the American peoj^le, an accounting of my decisions and
my actions, how I went about learning at first-hand the operations of
the FBI, examining and evaluating them, the changes I have made,
my veiwpoints, and the conclusions I have reached about this American
original.
Every American is a shareholder in the FBI. Every American has
a right, I believe, to know the frank and candid reactions and views
of the man who has held this responsible position since May 3 of
last year.
When I became Acting Director, I made a key decision. I decided
that I would not be a mere caretaker, making no waves and taking no
actions. Rather, as Acting Director, I would not only make those
decisions necessary for the day-to-day conduct of FBI operations but
also those long-term decisions essential to the continued effectiveness
and efficienc3^ of tlie organization.
Mr. Hoover's death left a serious void. The members of the FBI
were stunned and deeply grieved. They were accustomed to strong
leadership. I believed that only by taking a positive and active ap-
proach, by working closel}' with the traditional leadership of the FBI,
could we come through this critical period of transition.
I approached my assignment with deep feelings of respect and
admiration for the FBI. Yet, at the same time, there were no stars in
ni}^ CA'es. I had my feet on the ground and was read^^ to ask the
tough questions.
It is true that I had no i^rofessional law-enforcement experience
prior to my entry into the FBI. I had not been handicapped or pre-
disposed in any way, and, strange as these words may sound, I think
there is sound basis for this statement. The FBI is an investigative
agency accustomed to working on a daih^ basis ^^'ith inquisitive lawyers
and responding to tough questions. The law-enforcement expertise is
there in great abundance, and that expertise has responded mag-
nificently to my appearance on the scene and to my brand of
leadership.
Basic to my approach, however, was a desire to learn, to keep an
open mind, to become a part of the FBI as a living, active, human
organization.
Wliat made it tick? ^Vliat were the sinews, muscles, and nerves
that held it together? Wliat were its problems? ^Vlio were the FBI
people, both at headquarters and in the 59 field divisions across the
United States? How could I earn the respect of these dedicated men
and women, so that I could lead them effectivel}^ and so that we could
work together as the FBI had always worked, as a team, as a "we"
organization.
On my very first weekend in office, I developed a series of topics to
be examined by me and the senior officials of the FBI — which I later
distilled into 13 avenues of inquiry — dealing with such topics as or-
ganized crime, subversion, narcotics traffic, and espionage. A cop}' of
these avenues of inquiry, Mr. Chairman, is appended as exliibit "A"
to this statement.
Thus was launched the first group of a series of studies that continue
to this day and will be continumg under a new Office of Planning and
Evaluation far into the future.
I have been privileged, as no outsider had ever before been so
privileged, to observe the performance of the FBI at first hand, to
direct its performance, to question its performance, and to evaluate
its performance.
It is a rare tribute to ?slr. Hoover, and to the men and w omen who
built the FBI with him, for me to be able to sa) to you today that this
magnificent organization of human beings responded with a zest, an
enthusiasm, and with an all-consuming fidelity to perfection that is
unparalleled in my experience.
As the days passed, the position papers and study papers achieved
a degree cf excellence that seemed to challenge me, my own personal
staff, and the senior executives of the FBI to find any point, a single
topic, that should have been covered and w-as not.
These early days formed the most intensive educational experience
I have ever encountered, stimulating and filled with insights. I asked
the men and w'omen of the FBI to "show me" — and, beyond all ex-
pectation, they showed me wherein the FBI's reputation resides.
At the same time, I wanted to get to know them personally , It was
no graven image or historical mausoleum whose leadership I inherited
when I moved to FBI headquarters. It was a working organization.
It was a human institution.
I made a special effort to visit our field divisions, and, to date, I
have visited all of them except one. I visited the people of our head-
quarters divisions here in Washington. I talked to these dedicated men
and women — to the special agents in charge of the field divisions, to
the special agent who works the cases on the street, to the stenographer,
to the file clerk. I met with them. I wanted to see them, to talk to
them, and I wanted them to see me. This was a period of transition,
a period of trial, evaluation, and measurement on both sides.
I consider these visits to the field and to our headquarters divisions
to be of overriding importance to the effectiveness of our overall
effort and to our morale. I have every reason to believe that the men
and women of the FBI share this view.
I moved into the FBI wdth a leadership philosoph}^ that comes down,
fundamentall}^, to a choice between the meat axe and an attitude of
mutual trust and confidence. A new' man can enforce control, which
is wdiere the meat axe comes in, or he can build confidence — confidence
up and confidence do\vn. He can run a penal colony, or a living,
breathing, human organization, with all the risks that entails and all
its incomparable strengths. I chose the latter course, and I am proud
to report, Mr. Chairman, that the morale in the FBI is high, and I am
pleased to say that it has always been high.
Very naturally, as the Acting Director, I based my conduct of the
operations of the FBI on certain principles — principles that have set
8
the tone for 1113' 10-month administration. I would like to share some
of them with you, for these are principles that affect not only the FBI
internally and operationally but affect its role in our free societ}^.
First, I am determined that the FBI will remain completely and
absoluteh^ nonpolitical. This is one of the pillars of its historic strength.
This is a policy that enables the FBI to perform efficiently, regardless
of which great political party holds the reins of government, a policy
that enables the FBI to carry out its responsibilities without the pull
of political allegiance or the thrust of political influence.
When I met with President Nixon last May, at the time of my ap-
pointment as Acting Director, he gave me only one instruction, and
he reiterated it on the 16th of tliis month, that the FBI and its Di-
rector continue to stay out of politics and to remain free of politics.
I was not at all surprised to receive this instruction. It typifies our
past relationship, which, for a decade and more, has always been
essentially professional, on my part, as a law3xr and administrator.
It is going to remain that way.
I pledge to the members of this committee, to the Senate, and to the
American people, that, if the Senate advises and consents, and the
President appoints, I will cause the FBI to continue to exercise the
highest degree of professional competence in the interest of our Nation
and all its people. At no time will political considerations or influence,
in anv shape or form, alter or guide mv decisions or the activities of
the FBI.
If, Mr. Chairman, I am unable to persevere in this determination
for nnj reason, if my loyalties to the Nation's elected leadership, to
the Constitution, and to my job, ever come into conflict, I will resign
at once and return to my beloved law firm in southeastern Connecticut.
In following another operating principle, I have tried to open the
windows, so to speak, to give the public and the news media an op-
portunity to see a little more of the FBI's internal workings, not just
its final accomplishments.
I happen to believe — with Thomas Jefferson — that our democracy
is a very fragile and precious form of Government, and I believe that
it has lasted all these years because an interested and informed elec-
torate has had confidence in its institutions. If the American people
are informed of the facts, they can be counted on to make the right
decisions and support the right decisions most of the time. And they
become informed primarily through a free press, reporting objectivel}''
and factually.
I realize that the FBI cannot live in a fishbowl. We are an investiga-
tive agency and an intelligence agency. Constitutional due process
and national security considerations demand a measure of secrecy
for the protection of individuals, to protect the integrity of the
investigative process itself, and for the common good, the general
welfare of society as a whole.
It is now FBI policy, however, and to the maximum extent possible,
to furnish information to the news media, to answer questions, to
allow them to have a firsthand look at some of our activities, in the
hope that such a policy -will enable them to better understand and to
report to the American people the facts regarding FBI operations.
If the American people are not informed, or are misinformed, some
of the blame must necessarily rest with us. We are making the effort,
and will contmue to make the effort, to work with, not against, the
press.
The committee might be interested in knowing that, during the
past 10 months, 1 have met with more than 1,000 members of the
fourth estate representing all segments of the media. 1 have met
with a large number of them in my office in head-to-head situations,
and in groups. I have talked to them over the telephone; I have
answered their inquiries at press availability conferences. On my
\'isits to our field di\'isions, 1 have specifically announced in advance
that I w^ould be available to any interested member of the press.
I have also undertaken to make myself available through public
appearances in various parts of the country, before law enforcement,
civic, church, educational, and business groups. I believed then, and 1
believe now, that this is one way in which I can report to the American
people about their investment in the FBI. Fourteen of 33 speeches
made through November 17, 1972, and sponsored by organizations
other than the FBI or the Department of Justice, were made in con-
nection with my visits to our field di\dsions. Durmg this same period, I
also made eight speeches sponsored by the FBI or the Department. I
submit, Mr. Chairman, that a fair reading of these speeches will
indicate clearly that these were not political or campaign speeches.
There was no intent that they be, and they were not ^^Titten to be,
political or campaign speeches.
^Ir. Chairman, I have appended a list of these appearances as
exhibit "B" to this statement.
The Chairman. It will be admitted into the record.
Mr. Gray. Also, I have endeavored to talk with indi^^duals who
have, in the past, been critical of the FBI. I believe in personal
dialog, in person-to-person discussions, where there is some chance,
however slight, of correcting misunderstandings. On occasion, these
have arisen because accurate information about the FBI has been
lacking. I have tried, to the best of my ability, to correct such mis-
understandings. 1 am also well aware that dialog is of no avail if the
human mind is closed.
Still another operating principle is that the FBI ^^'ill continue to be
a servant of the people, all the people, responsive to protecting both
the security and the rights of every citizen.
I believe that there is no principle more important to a free society
than that government should remain close to the people, and that the
dispersion of power in our Federal system is one of the great safeguards
of the hberties of a free people.
Fears have been expressed — b}^ a very small number — that the FBI
is becoming a national police force, that it is infringing on the liberties
of the individual citizen. I pledge to this committee, the Senate, and
the American people, that as long as I am its Director, the FBI will
not exceed the jurisdictional authority defined by the President and
the Congress, the FBI ^\•ill respect the constitutional guidelines handed
down by the Judiciary. In brief, the FBI will not take the law into its
o-wn hands.
As for my principles of management, you know that a new man at
the top can signal any number of radical changes, or his arrival can
mean a continuation of the same policies and procedures, with or
without careful examination and evaluation.
I resolved to follow a course of continuity and change, that of
continuing the same policies and procedures, -with a careful examina-
tion and evaluation being conducted simultaneously.
10
It is not my A\ay to move in ^Wth the broad brush of change if the
organization has been deHvering the product coupled with a handsome
return on equit}^ This was the situation in the FBI.
^[y evahiation of the FBI, based on probing and study, is clear.
The Nation can be proud of the quality of its performance. The men
and women of the FBI are complete professionals. Their prime, and
overriding, characteristic is a sustamed pursuit of excellence in service
to the American people.
It is true, however, based on our evaluations, that some changes in
policies and procedures have occurred. There is nothing discrediting
about this. Mr. Hoover, to his eternal credit, built a superb organiza-
tion unic^uely adaptable to change, wliicli is why it has always remained
so effective in its operations.
Some of these changes have been substantive in nature and, as you
are undoubtedly aware, some have been well publicized. For example,
the FBI since last May accepts applications from women who aspire
to become special agents, a policy determmation which, incidentally,
also happens to be m accord with the law of the land.
We now have seven female agents who have been assigned to field
divisions of the FBI following their successful completion of our new
agent's training course. They are performing the same duties as their
male counterparts.
Eight more female agents are still in training. Four of them are
members of the new agents class that will graduate tomorrow, and
they too will be reporting to field divisions.
Early last June, changes were made in the grooming standards for
members of the FBI, but not in the requnement that they be neat,
clean, and presentable in appearance. We changed the grooming stand-
ards; we did not abolish them.
I know, and every man and woman in the FBI knows, that the FBI
would self-destruct without discipline. We have not abandoned our
disciplinary procedures but we do approach them and apply them in a
different manner. A law-enforcement agency of any kind or size cannot
function at all, let alone function in the pubHc interest in accordance
with law, without a firm, fair, and swift disciplinary system.
On May 26 last, I announced that an Office of Equal Employment
Opportunity Affairs was being established for the specific purpose of
intensifying the FBI efforts to recruit more black Americans, Asian-
Americans, Spanish-speaking Americans, and American Indians.
My initial inciuiries last spring showed that the FBI's overall record
in this area had been good. Special efforts had been made to recruit
employees from these groups of Americans, but it had proven difficult
to attract people qualified in every particular to meet the standards for
FBI agents.
Although recruiting among these Americans is tough, we will not
lower our standards, and I am certain that members of these groups of
America.ns would not want us to do so.
Representatives of the Office of Equal Employment Opportunity
Affairs visit our field divisions across the United States and meet with
influential community leaders and members of the press, among others,
in an effort to recruit qualified applicants from these groups.
Since May 1972, we have achieved an increase in the FBI from
among these groups of Americans, Mr. Chairman, and I have appended
exhibit "C" to this statement which sets forth the small gains that lots
of hard work has so far produced.
11
The Chairman. It will be admitted into the record.
Mr. Gray. Another basic change in our policies concerns the re-
ordering of investigative priorities in the area of organized crime.
Organized crime is a tenacious, brutal, and costly social malady.
The investment capital of the organized criminal element is generated
by its tremendous illegal gambling combines and narcotics traffic
throughout the country. This investment capital enables the under-
world to finance other criminal activities, as well as fraudulent activi-
ties in legitimate business and industry.
In order to strike organized crime where it would do the most
damage, that is, at the top and in the pocketbook, we are concentrating
our manpower on the larger, more powerful hoodlum groups, on the
upper echelon leaders, and on their most prolific sources of illicit
revenue.
The emphasis is not on assembling statistics, or keeping a high
caseload, but in using our resources to hit dii'ectly at the strong
points of the criminal enemy.
Along these same lines, we have improved our acquisition and dis-
semination of narcotics intelligence. Violations of the narcotics laws,
of course, are not '\\-ithin the investigative jurisdiction of the FBI.
But m the performance of our regular work, we receive information
concerning the drug traffic and about the prmcipals mvolved in this
traffic.
Last summer, following receipt and study of a thorough in-house
survey of the narcotics problem that I had ordered, I instructed each
of our field divisions to designate a special agent as the narcotics
coordinator for the division. So also I directed that a narcotics co-
ordinator be designated at FBI Headquarters, and I ordered each
special agent in charge of our field divisions to mtensif}^ the acquisition
of narcotics intelligence for transmission to agencies having du'ect
investigative responsibilities in cases involving violations of our
narcotics laws.
This shift in emphasis has improved our efficiency in generating
narcotics intelligence and this, in turn, is proving to be of real help to
the agencies with jurisdiction in the narcotics field.
We have established a new FBI policy designed to insure complete
fairness regarding civil rights investigations in cases involvmg com-
plaints against police officers — fairness to the officers and the com-
plainant. We do not assign special agents to make these investigations
who have worked with the officers involved in the normal course of
business. We bring in an agent who has had no prior close association
with the local police department. This policy is in the interests of all,
our agents, the police, and the public we both serve.
In August 1972, the evaluation process that I had been spearhead-
ing jDersonally for 3 months was formalized in an Office of Plannmg
and Evaluation. This office has been, and will be, conducting de-
tailed studies of all phases of FBI operations, policies as well as pro-
cedures. We are giving ourselves a good, thorough overhaul, and we
believe that we are the people best qualified to undertake this task.
The FBI, an agency of nearly 20,000 employees, needs topflight
management. To further this objective, I have altered some, and
initiated new, management programs. For example, last October I
established Executive Selection Boards comprising experienced top
level executives from both our Headquarters and field staffs to recom-
mend to me those men in our ranks best qualified to advance to
12
positions of greater responsibility and authority. Another example is
the institution of management instruction programs for our executives.
These individuals are required to keep abreast of the latest ideas and
concepts in effective decisionmaking, work planning and productivity,
performance appraisal and evaluation, and human behavior.
And if that reference to "human behavior" seems inappropriate to
the FBI agent — it is not. The men and women of the FBI, like all
law-enforcement people, are expected these days to serve as baby
sitters, handholders, and behavioral scientists, even as we expect
them to confront the most desperate criminal with guns and guts
and raw courage. It is not easy for the police officer to serve in this
dual capacity. But increasingly he must. He has to be more of a
sociologist, and, simultaneously, no less of a cop.
During the past 10 months, we have taken steps to bring our
headquarters and field staffs closer together. In an organization
stretching from Honolulu to Bangor, Maine, from Anchorage, Alaska,
to San Juan, Puerto Rico, there is always the danger of polarization,
of hard-core divisiveness between headquarters and the field staffs.
As I indicated previoush^ I have visited 58 of the 59 field divisions.
I have personally met, and talked at length, with each of our special
agents in charge, as well as other field officials. I want to know their
problems because their problems are our problems. I seek their
counsel; in fact, I demand their advice and counsel. I want to establish
that personal rapport which builds confidence and enhances perform-
ance.
In this connection, the FBI now encourages the interchange of
ideas between field and headquarters officials. We have made this
exchange a reality by visits to and from the field and to and from
headquarters by our key officials.
Most important, we have taken steps to increase the productivitj^
of the special agent in carrying out his daily assignments. To this end,
we have eliminated a number of sheer administrative chores requiring
considerable paperwork, thereby stealing his time from investigative
tasks. For example, last June, shortly after I became Acting Director,
we discontinued the requirement to maintain so-called time in the
office statistics, that is, keeping account of the time spent by the agent
in the office during working hours.
We are seeking to free the special agent from unnecessary adminis-
trative burdens, thereby enabling him to turn in an even better
performance during his day's work.
The FBI forms part of a law-enforcement team, a team that today
stands on the front lines against crime.
I have made a special effort to meet personally ^^'ith my brother
law-enforcement officials. Last year, for example, some 50 of the
Nation's chief law-enforcement officials, representing the major urban
and metropolitan areas of our land, met Avith me and top execu-
tives of the FBI in my office in small groups so that we could have
meaningful, thorough discussions. We reviewed our specific needs in
the fight against crime, the cooperative services of the FBI, and ways
in which we could be of further help to them and they to us. Their
13
cooperation has been, and continues to be, of great assistance to the
FBI.
Last spring our new FBI Training Academ}^ opened at Quantico,
Va., affording increased opportunity for improved pohce training and
thereby contributing heavily to the development of police professionals.
One of the more promising features of our National Acadenw pro-
gram is our affiliation \vith the University of Virginia. We are brmging
the cop to the campus and the campus to the cop. Both are profiting
from a really important learning experience.
We have held three national s^^mposia at the new FBI Academy
at Quantico. These have been devoted to major police concerns such
as police-community relations, urban police patrol practices, and ter-
rorism. A national seminar on current bombing problems began at the
Academy on Februar}^ 25 and concludes toda}", February 28.
To help law enforcement agencies cope A\dth the gro\\dng danger of
deadly attacks, the FBI developed a week long antisniper and sur-
vival training course ui the fall of 1971. A total of 940 officers, repre-
senting 186 agencies, have been afforded this trainmg at Quantico and
another 200 agencies are waiting to be accommodated.
Mr. Chairman, I have prepared an exhibit to tliis statement that
sets forth additional changes made in FBI policies and procedures
during the past 10 months, exhibit D. I do this to save time, not
to indicate that they are of lesser importance than the ones I have
discussed \vith the committee. Some are, but some are not.
The Chairman. That is exhibit D? It ^^all be admitted mto the
record.
Mr. Gray. Mr. Chairman, after 10 months as a member of the
FBI and from my vantage point as Acting Director, I ha^■e found the
FBI to be a superb organisation, a faithful servant to our democratic
tradition. Its foundations have been well built; its people are complete
professionals; and their dedication is to service, integrity, and
excellence.
There have been changes in style, simply because I am Pat Gray
and not Mr. Hoover. I have, where I felt it was necessar}^, made some
changes, changes that I was convinced would be beneficial not only
to the FBI but also to the people we serve.
But the FBI remains the same, an FBI dedicated and loyal, imbued
with the concepts of fidelity, bravery, and integrit}^— the servant of
the people.
I am highl}^ optimistic about the future of the FBI and our free
society.
I am optimistic about the future of the FBI because I know — as
only an insider can ever really know — that the people of the FBI are
imbued Avith a spirit and dedication to constitutional principles that
augurs well for the future.
The FBI, operating as it does under the constitutional controls of
our democratic system of government, is, I believe, one of our greatest
national institutions.
I am honored and humbled, Mr. Chairman, to have been nominated
by the President to be its Director.
Thank you, sir.
(The exhibits referred to follow :)
91-331—73-
14
Exhibit A
Avenues of Inquiry
(1) Organized Crime.
(2) Subversion (Specifically include in this paper a detailed analysis and
justification for our current policies with regard to the investigation of individuals
where there has been no specific violation of Federal law. Is additional legislation
needed in this area?)
(3) Drug Abuse (This is one of the Nation's most pressing problems and we
should be sure that the FBI is doing everything possible to assist. Set forth
specific contributions which we have made during the last six months. What
further should we and can we do? Imagination and ingenuity should be exercised
to explore possibility of further contributions within our jurisdictional lines and
without diverting substantial manpower from other critical areas.)
(4) National Police Force (What safeguards do we have to prevent the FBI
from becoming a National police force? What role should the Inspection Division
play and should the Inspection Division report directly to the Director?)
(5) Bureau Files (We have a vast amount of information in our general files,
in the National Crime Information Center, and in the Identification Division.
Are we taking adequate security precautions to prevent leaks to unauthorized
persons? Are state safeguards adequate to insure the confidentiality of National
Crime Information Center information? Are classification procedures completely
responsive to our needs and to the needs of other Federal agencies? Is there a
need for certain of our files of a very sensitive nature to be given greater security
than the criminal files?)
(6) FBI Jurisdiction (Should we have an office specifically set up for the evalu-
ation of pending legislation and to study the needs for any additional legislation?
Are FBI jurisdictional lines sharply defined? Is there any need for legislation to
transfer some of our responsibilities to other Federal agencies?)
(7) Police Training (Is our training responsive to the needs of the police
agencies we serve? What role should the FBI assume in this field? Examine our
National Academy program.)
(8) Personnel Matters (Recruiting, applicant standards, evaluation, discipline,
including methods by which employee is advised of requirements.)
(9) Director's Advisory Committee (Need for, proposed make-up, and method
of operation.)
(10) Director's Staff Group (Mid-range and long-range policy planning and
evaluation.)
(11) Office of Minority Affairs (What steps can be taken to increase the num-
ber of qualified ajjplicants from minority groups?)
(12) Should the FBI Special Agent Position be Opened to Women? (Require-
ments of the position should be carefully considered.)
(13) Grooming and Personal Appearance Standards for FBI Employees
(Here we must consider the tenor of the times. We must be sure that our standards
are reasonable and yet at the same time preserve the effective image of the Bureau.)
15
o
I—
C5
O
<
00
<
>-
<
en
o
CQ
Q-
DO
— 1
>-
m
o
<
CO
00
o
o
I—
CO
o -rs
5 £
—I uu
5 — '
TO "O
00 ^
£ 3
_i o
1 = =
o >
c o o o
<-a'
E .-
o •— ^ > -*
Z <u.
c
c
o
js:
>
DO
o
TO
>-
-i:
00
«c
-:
ro
c»
O)
-^
;^
CSJCSJ
csj r^ r^
r-cn en
cr>
— «
-— «
roO
^ E— <« _-o °-£ I' c
o TO o o^ 0) o g— ro
--?
■a H
o ro
. 3 Q-
•3E
_ , 00
O . => 05
i_ tJ crt
— Q);p —
TO "= ojo
3 u--
ED t «
t_ Vfc/ —
O q; O
j^ i_ O (J
^ =J-r-i'°
5-= !=.s;
—I <u.
TO -Q
O ^
E
<
O (/J
O
d
o
<2 oisz^
-C3 cvTir) r^cD irTLn to to , ^"1 rTr-J"
■ -CS] CNJ CSI
csi r^ I — r^
r^ CT> CT) ctj
3 3 3 ID
« ,x ■ — .
^ o"»
o _
ds
c wi cz
m- E
o m o *- ro o
S E
o m ■
E ;
c
'-1=-'
E (/^ <
. T5 o to
■■E Si-:
o ■*
O
>,<!>
E
E
: " = .StdIt: o o
ro ro 1,
00 ;
e'
ISm.Eoo ^,'
: c c o
: en cu :P -
CM CMC
r^ r-^ r
CT) cnc
^- .-H c
I CM CMC
J CNJ cmcm
- :^ — r^ f^-
I a> oj oj tD ^^
c: c c: c ^
I 3 a 3 =3 3
CM cm
CM r^ r^
en .— . .— I
.-T^ o
o
o
10
ce.
o
I—
o
UJ
o
<
CO
<
>-
■o
«r
QJ
rr
3
C3
■J
x:
O
o
CJ
q:
j
1—
03
<
a.
1—
. 1
m
>-
IE
m
X
LU
CO
1—
CO
>
o
O
<
o
_i
m
ZD
a.
E
E
o
E -^
ID I
X =
E
TOO c "
CD--; O it
"oj o CQ "o
o
'to
2 g
Oi
h-<
■>,
.X
V)
"o
3
n
73
O
a>
E
c
5
TO
c:
TO
TO
(—
o
TZS
O
<
zz
n
£:
TO
F
1
QJ
E
m
X
o
X
o
OJ
3
QJ
QJ
OJ
s
o
O
1
o
^
CO
CO
i—
OOO
§
a o -
" . - oo
: OJ «
u >>
5 CD P3
I , — ^1 I
CNJCNJCM
t — ( — i^
CD CTl O")
>^B
(NJCSJCNJ CVJ
r — r-^ r*. r^
CT) <D CTl O^
Z3 =3 3 13
CT) (U
o o 5i
O Q.
.S oo '
5 p <»^
o t: o
E
E
-eE -s
- oojooocroooooooOf^— oo
(u = jr QJ c o 5^
QJ QJ
*- =3 CS.
£•2
lg
:5E = -.
' o o
! OT3
TO CO .— >-
-Q ii 3 TO
— . _ o -c:
<D lO
CSJ CSJCNJOJ
1 — P-* r^ r-.
CTi CTJ O CT>
o __-
. c: ■— TO — t-*-
tv f= ^ C c
a; c ^ Q.~
oooocos
C\I CM CNJ CSJ CSI
r-. r^«- r — r — r^^
<T> (T) <T> <T> lyi
CO <D
<D =
CO =>
*-* —
MO
" o
So:
= ^- <D--?
3 ° ^ <
O — ; O -
e: J5 J= 1^
o 3 c: tu
■■CCKco
'en CD Oi
-D Q>^
CD TO
5< <<
.E — E
QJ Q) 03
f f ^ . .
TO TO O O O
3 =3_X3^,
E E "^
V)
<
OJ i_
aotu
QJca
Ms,
S CJ
oo
^c=->
c — ~
iE S o QJ X i
T3-^---*-; QJ :
w O -^ -^ — ■
Q_ CO CD QQ . . ,
CsJCSJCSJ
) — r-. r^
CJiCTJCD
• -CM CM
CM r^ r^
* Gj *x:
^^ 1-
TO Q.^-Q
to r. oo P
r-, ^ iXi ,.
TO^^ OJ
CMCSJ CM CM
r^ r^ r^ rx.
CT> CT5 CTi cr>
O X
O ao * QJ
c Q. 5? x' o"
oCog.«-E
TO-=jn°- c=
> '-' ^ — TO
> 0<;lu 00
00
*^ CSl <sg Csl CM
i;*^ r-^ r-. r^ r-*
CT>CT^ o^ CD cr>
« ^ - ^.— TltTlO CM CO
.— ".— 'OOOO*— «•— "— 'CMCM
Di)abobbhDbci£Qi]cibQb
I33Z3ZI = =J=3=>=3
<<<<<<<<<
333qjqjqjqjcjjQ)CIjQJQJ
<<<OOOOOOCOC/200COOOC/3
a. CL CLO.
OJ OJ OJ OJ
CL CL Ci ex C2.
QJ QJ QJ QJ QJ
CO CO GO CO 00
17
>v
TO
^ s;
CO
U
c
9. c
"tr'w
3
•^
^
.Sf 03
■= =
O
(U
=> =
0) o
03
>!,
s
"S
^ dj
t/5 CU
C
o
<D o
^ c
to
S
<
X
CO X
(^ 03
o
LU
«^
"S
ca.
c:
o
**-
(U a.
E
w
TO
OJ
CO
'i
o
TO
s
<
o
a.
c
TO
0) aj
j£
-c *^
> j£
o
0)
C3
00
■"CO
£ o
a.
.£=
-C
c _
O) Q.
00
1—
h-
<
— <
CO CO
>> -^ ;^
*- M 13
00
c '^ —
ro
o
fc
o
00
E
QJO
■K E
c <u
<5
S <" c
S "> o
to 0".iz ^
>- . - u c
O 00 c= U3
-o 1 OJ
c: *- o o .
o--^:^ <»■
.5 0) -73 •
ra <J-o S:
= c = 5
k- a> -3 -^
CU
Q."-
— o o
V-I
o
o
O)
<—
TO
OJ
'c
o
.,
CO
H
o
CO
E .
.-a
u do
■o -c; — :
O
d
(U
u •*->
<u =
^= .
VJ m TO C: Oi
CO
o
<o
(U
o
{-"
TO
tz
CO
O)
<U
&oo
CD
CU
=3
F
EF
o
o
Jd
33
ou.
">
=J
TO
o
=*.
a=
cz
o
-n
• o
o
I n
o.
1 13
H
lO
o
1 ^^^^
TO
■ QiCQ
D. 5co:3
to «3.^
CO i_^
Q. — "Ha.
r"
v>
r-
o
S.2
S ^ E
o
oj ■
13 GJ > 3■ —
0■ M d O- >
C O = 03
■ - TO O TO o
.:£ u TO ^
ce z<Li.
MCLg
i_ cr r3 > !
.2 ° =^5 '
.E E ra « I
TO O TO C I
^ Ci3 =3
<00<
TO
CO "^
i to
.9-0
I ^ TO
c o
o ^
bC (
- TO
00 -J^
D _; QJ TO =
^ O OJ 03 3
t/) JZ »- —
- OJ ^ i_ -^ "
5 = 2 S£<
Q.= 52 g:
.2 i
c= b
o -^
O c
— . £■
C >
<l> rr
to
EQ)
Oi
1^
Sen
Q. -*^
CO *^
DO dj-a:
.5 .CO j^
lo'o c
E OJ o)
O X »_
== = =
o o c
TO c^ *3
-.<C/5CJ
c o
_ <g
S IS
= ^"
CO Cio
S Eo
_ o-a
E -s;^
'o <u
o J=
cot—
co^
■S E
75 >-
;g-"-E
DO TO *C >;^ (g — - >—
c.£5~£2S.
I— co_i oqzci
c n: > o
1) ;s 03 to
= . C TO 03
SCO ^x*^
0) <1>
- •. " S ™ rl 3
I35l— c/jODCO
<» .
„-!= a=3 TO Q.TO.--g^.E i g
TO;=^CO^Oc5=gm™.H'-!
o <^
TO tao T- "^ ra
CsJcsjCNJCNJCNJCNJCNjCNJCVICSJCNlf^JcgCNJ-,
CDcncT>cncTicncDcr>c^o^CT)Cr>cncD^
CD Or-H.— (cotDr^ca^a-LOin to'o^ o CD*"— ^~-^''
•— 'Qi— •-— t'-t'— 'T-HCNjesjcMCNJcsicsirococo'^
O CJOOOOCJCJOOOOOCJCJO
O OOOOOOOOOOOOOOZ
eg CM r--
r-- r^ o^
CTl CD ,— «
O
Q
TO -
> =
^ O
S"5i
CNJCsJ
cncT>
|0 0
TO - -
> C C
_ m (T3
CO on CO
r^ r-. r^
tT> o^ c^
CiJ,
: to
cno^^^^.
n ^ ^ ra Qi > -^
k--= cr OJ r3.^-^
"aO 9--^ <U ^ <= ^
i;^ n </i — ^ fn ^
"^ <— m "^ rz: — ? 3
r^ CO r^ r>. r- p** ^
o^ r^ o> cr> CTi CD •-"
CNJ — — ' — ' ^ CNI CO
ca ro a> o 03 03 03,^
—; --; u. u. u- u- Lt- S
^ iZ "^
18
Exhibit C
Increases in Minority Employment
Following is a tabulation as of February 1, 1973, of FBI employees who are
members of four minority groups, compared with the number employed as of
May 1, 1972:
FBI
Field offices headquarters
Total
FBI black employees as of IVIay 1, 1972:
Agents
Clerks
Total
FBI black employees as of Feb. 1, 1973:
Agents
Clerks
Total..
FBI Spanish-surnamed employees as of May 1, 1972:
Agents .--.-.
Clerks.
Total
FBI Spanish-surnamed employees as of Feb. 1, 1973:
Agents
Clerks
Total
FBI American Indian employees as of IVlay 1, 1972:
Agents
Clerks
Total..
FBI American Indian employees as of Feb. 1, 1973:
Agents _.
Clerks
Total
FBI Asian-American employees as of IVIay 1, 1972:
Agents
Clerks _.
Total
FBI Asian-American employees as of Feb. 1, 1973:
Agents
Clerks
Total _._.
60
3
1,231
63
154
1,385
214
1,234
1,448
67
5
1,358
72
195
1,553
262
1,363
1,625
61
1
116
62
110
226
171
117
288
74
1
134
75
120
254
194
135
329
3
0
0
3
2
2
5
0
5
11
0
1
11
7
8
18
1
19
15
0
22
15
23
45
38
19
28
22
0
26
60
19
54
47
26
73
Exhibit D
Additional Changes in FBI Policies and Procedures May 3, 1972 to Feb-
ruary 28, 1973
1. Delegation of greater authority to Special Agents in Charge to handle
investigative matters.
2. Reduction in frequency of routine administrative reportmg from the field.
3. Instituted annual 2-da3' conferences at Headquarters for Special Agents in
Charge and eliminated the requirement that they attend Inservice classes.
4. Instituted policy of bringing Assistant Special Agents in Charge and super-
visors to Headquarters for specialized management training.
5. Increased personal consultation between the Acting Director and the
Executives Conference. Formerly, the Executives Conference met with the
Associate Director.
6. Left the two Assistant to the Director positions vacant in an effort to shorten
the lines of reporting between the Assistant Directors and the Acting Director.
7. Realigned supervisorj^ responsibility of certain investigatory matters among
the Headquarters divisions.
19
8. Instituted program of sending top Headquarters personnel to the field
divisions for consultations.
9. Reorganized functions previously assigned to the Crime Research Division
by transferring responsibility for Congressional and press services to the Director's
Office and remaining functions to other divisions.
10. Instituted a policy of transferring top Headquarters personnel to the field
and top field personnel mto Headquarters.
11. Reestablished a liaison section to facilitate and expedite business with
other government agencies.
12. Puiged inactive arrest records of individuals age 80 and older from the
fingerprint files.
13. Reduced the length of tours for personnel on foreign assignments from 3
years to 2 years.
14. Re-emphasized Inservice training for Special Agents and instituted special-
ized classes for Inservice training.
15. Eliminated the requirement that Agents in Resident Agencies submit dailj^
reports of their activities.
16. Clarified the Hardship Transfer Policy, which allows transfers for personnel
with severe personal hardships which could be alleviated bj^ a change in office of
assignment.
17. Modified the weight limits for Special Agents to make them more realistic
in accoi dance with expert medical advice.
18. Changed policy on granting advance of funds to an employee officially
transf erred, to include advances for:
(1) Per diem and mileage when travel is by a privately owned automobile;
and
(2) Subsistence expenses while occupying temporary quarters.
19. Instituted voluntarj^ physical fitness program with established standards
for Special Agents, allowing them to use up to three one-hour periods per week
during regular working hours for this purjoose.
20. Revised procedures for evaluating disciplinary action in connection with
inspections.
21. Established tougher physical tests for Agents in training.
22. Cut from two years to one the time period that Special Agent applicants
must wait to be re-examined if they fail to qualify on the first try.
23. Changed the ciualifications for the Special Agent position to consider certain
enlisted military service as sufficient under the Modified Program for Special
Agent applicants. Formerly the only enlisted service which was considered
sufficient was that in military intelligence.
24. Changed the qualifications for tour leaders so that female clerical person-
nel are eligible to be tour leaders, a position formerh' restricted to male clerical
personnel.
2.5. Changed the smoking rules to apply equallj^ to men and women. Formerly
female emploj^ees were prohibited from smoking at their desks.
26. Changed rules to allow employees to have coffee, soft drinks, etc., at their
desks. Formerly, this had not been allowed.
27. Changed policy to allow certification, where appropriate, of former em-
ployees as desirable for employment in the criminal justice field upon completion
of their education as required to qualify for Law Enforcement Education Pro-
gram (LEEP) loans. Prior policj' was to certifj', where appropriate, onlj' current
employees.
28. Discontinued the program of gathering biographical data on non-incumbent
Congressional candidates.
29. Caused a White House Fellow to be assigned to the Bureau for the first
time.
30. Established the Law Enforcement Training Advisory Committee.
31. Discontinued the compilation of statistics on the recovery of stolen motor
vehicles which were transported in interstate commerce unless the vehicle was
recovered specifically as a result of FBI investigative efforts.
32. Instituted a training program for airline personnel in anti-hijacking pro-
cedures.
The Chairman. You made a very fine and able statement, Mr.
Gray.
You state that the President's instruction to you, his only instruc-
tion when you were appointed, was to stay out of politics, is that
correct?
20
Mr. Gray. That is correct, sir. He did that on May 3, then also
on May 4 in the presence of my wife, and my wife volunteered the
information she was going to go down and work as a volunteer for
the Committee to Reelect the President, and he told her not to go
and to have absolutely nothing to do with politics.
The Chairman. Well, in fact, have you stayed out of politics?
Mr. Gray. I have done my very level best to stay out, Mr. Chair-
man, and I believe
The Chairman. Well, have you stayed out?
Mr. Gray. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. All right.
Now, the charge is made that the White House got you to go to
Cleveland, Ohio, to make a speech. Wliat are the facts about that?
Mr. Gray. The facts in that case are that a memorandum was
sent to me, and I was one of perhaps 20 to 30 people, I am told, in-
viting my attention to this particular speaking engagement at the
City Club of Cleveland, and stating in the last paragraph of that
memorandum, Mr. Chairman, I believe, that Ohio was important to
us and it would be a thing, a nice tiling, to do.
Let me stop for just a moment here and ask, Mr. Chairman, if I
may have the permission of the committee to submit for the record
the actual documentary information regarding this particular incident.
The Chairman. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gray. All right, now I would like to continue. I reviewed the
record, and I saw that this particular group, the City Club of Cleve-
land, had been sending invitations to the Director of the FBI since
1968 asking that he attend. I saw in the record that the staff of the
FBI had recommended that the Director attend because of the com-
position of this group.
Now at the particular time this memorandum came to me, I al-
ready had the in\'itation from the people at the City Club and I imme-
diately asked that the staff of the FBI look into this and determine
whether or not there were any political overtones here. I received
back a memorandum which is a part of the documentation that I
wish to insert in the record.
The Chairman. It will be admitted.
(Mr. Graj^ subsequently submitted the following documents for the
record :)
The White House,
Washington, B.C., June 13, 1972.
Memorandum for: Hon. L. Patrick Gray.
From: Patrick E. O'Donnell.
Subject: Freedom's Forum — The City Club, Cleveland, Ohio.
The Citj^ Club has asked our assistance in attempting to secure your partici-
pation as a key speaker sometime during the period following July 1, 1972. Since
its founding fifty years ago, Cleveland's Cit}- Club has been a focus and one of
the bulwarks of freedom of speech in one of America's great cities. The Club
maintains a deep interest in affairs of government, economics and politics, both
national and international. It offers a prestigious meeting place for the open
discussion of important social, political and economic problems.
The}' meet every Fridaj^ at noon and have a 300 maximum attendance. However,
if you were inclined, they could "go public" and provide almost a crowd of any
size you might desire. Both Secretaries Hodgson and Shultz have recently
addressed the Club and just recently Ambassador Bush delivered a well-received
speech.
With Ohio being crucially vital to our hopes in November, we would hope you
will assign this forum some priority in planning your schedule. In the event you
21
are interested, I have full background material available. Incidentally, Under
Secretary of Commerce Jim L3'nn is quite familiar with the Club.
Many thanks.
Memorandum
U.S. Government,
June 16, 1972.
Re Request for appearance of Acting Director Graj^.
To: Mr. Bishop.
From: M. A. Jones.
Subject: The City Club, Cleveland, Ohio.
A memorandum dated June 13, 1972, from Mr. Patrick E. O'Donnell, advised
Mr. Gray that his assistance had been requested to secure Mr. Gray's participa-
tion as a key speaker before The City Club of Cleveland, Ohio, sometime after
July 1, 1972. He pointed out that the Club meets Friday at noon, and although
they have a maximum attendance of 300, they could "go public" if Mr. Gray
were so inclined. He commented that Secretary Hodgson and Shultz recently
addressed the Club as well as Ambassador Bush. The Club offers a prestigious
meeting place for the open discussion of important social, political, and economic
problems.
The Cleveland Office has advised that The Citj^ Club has no political connec-
tions and actually the majority of the members could be classified as "liberals."
The Club engages in discussing controversial subjects and it is entirely possible
that some embarrassing questions could be put to Mr. Graj^ which might prove
embarrassing to him and the Bureau. They also noted that these meetings are
carried live on local radio stations.
Although Cleveland points out that this Club discusses controversial subjects,
it is believed that it might be advantageous for Mr. Graj^ to appear before such a
group. As indicated, the Club is dominated by liberals and these are the type of
people we should be contacting in an effort to "convert them."
Recommendation:
Mr. Gray may desire to accept this invitation and, if so, he should indicate
some Friday after July 1st when he could appear. (Due to other commitments,
it would appear that a Friday in August or early Fall might be the most con-
venient). Thereafter, additional details will be obtained from Mr. O'Donnell.
U.S. Government,
June 27, 1972.
Memorandxjm
Re Request for Appearance of Acting Director Graj-, August 11, 1972.
To: Mr. Felt.
From: T. E. Bishop.
Subject: The City Club, Cleveland, Ohio.
In a memorandum from Jones to Bishop dated 6/lb/72, there was set forth
details concerning an invitation extended to Mr. Gray by The City Club of
Cleveland, Ohio, for him to be a key speaker at a Fridaj'' noon meeting of the
Club sometime after July 1, 1972. It was recommended and approved that Mr.
Gray accept the invitation if possible. Mr. Gray noted, "I will do it but push it
out ahead. Check with Mrs. Neenan."
After consulting with Mrs. Neenan, on 6/26/72 Bishop advised Patrick E.
O'Donnell of The White House, through whom the invitation had been extended,
that Mr. Gray could make this appearance on August 11, 1972. O'Donnell stated
that he would check with Lawrence Robinson, Executive Director of The City
Club of Cleveland, (telephone — area code 216, 861-1260), to ascertain if this date
is satisfactory and advise Bishop of the result on 6/27/72.
On 6/27/72, Mr. O'Donnell advised Bishop that Mr. Robinson had informed
him that the Club would be delighted to have Mr. Gray speak to it at its noon
meeting on Friday, August 11, 1972. He advised that Mr. Robinson stated that
he would furnish Mr. Gray additional details concerning the Club and the meeting
in question in a letter to be forthcoming in the immediate future.
RecomTnendation:
That Crime Records Division begin preparing an appropriate speech for use
by Mr. Gray on August 11, 1972.
22
Jb Robinson Co., Jewelers. Inc.,
Cleveland, Ohio, June 28, 1972.
Mr. L. Patrick Gray III,
Acting Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.
Dear Director Gray: Thank you for agreeing to speak at the City Club of
Cleveland on August 11, 1972!
Patrick E. O'Donnell has been enormously helpful to us and we are writing at
his suggestion.
Our usual schedule is to have lunch at Noon, followed by a half hour talk be-
ginning at 12:30 p.m. Questions follow until we close at 1:30 p.m.
We will have an office available for your private use before and after your
presentation.
I will be in touch with your Assistant Director Bishop with additional details.
We are looking forward to the privilege of having you here.
Sincerely yours,
Larry Robinson.
The City Club,
Cleveland, Ohio, July 7, 1972.
Mr. L. Patrick Gray III,
Acting Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation,
De-partment of Justice, Washington, D.C.
Dear Director Gray: We are very pleased that you have accepted our
invitation to speak at our Forum on Friday, August 11. As you may know this
Forum has brought many well known people to Cleveland and raised many
crucial issues in the past. Many of our speakers have used this opportunity for a
major policy statement.
The Forum is carried live by one radio station (WCLV) and rebroadcasted in
its entirety by four others. We also get full TV and press coverage.
We begin with lunch at noon, go on the air at 12:30 with your speech, and
close with a half hour of questions till 1 :30. Please plan your presentation to last
25-30 minutes.
Will you please send us some biographical materials and the topic of your
speech so that we may give your coming adequate publicity.
Thanks again for planning to be with u? on June 16. We look forward to seeing
you then.
Sincerely yours,
Alan Davis, Executive Director.
July 12, 1972.
Mr. Larry Robinson,
J. B. Robinson Co., Jewelers, Inc.,
Cleveland, Ohio.
Dear Mr. Robinson: Assistant Director Bishop has advised me of your very
kind offer of cooperation in regard to my forthcoming trip to your city and you
may be sure I deeply appreciate yom* gracious hospitality.
Thank you for offering to meet me at the airport, but this will be unnecessary
since I previously made arrangements for transportation from there to the City
Club of Cleveland. Mr. Bishop or a representative from our local office in Cleveland
will be in contact with you prior to my speech concerning any additional details
relative to my visit.
With best wishes and warm respect,
Sincerely yours,
L. Patrick Gray III,
Acting Director,
July 13, 1972.
Mr. Alan Davis,
Executive Director, The City Club,
Cleveland, Ohio.
Dear Mr. Davis: I received your letter of July 7th and am certainly looking
forward to being with you at your Forum on August 11th.
23
In regard to your request, I am enclosing a copy of my biographical sketch and
my photograph which you may use as indicated in your letter. A representative
from my office will be in contact with you concerning the topic of my address.
With best wishes and warm respect,
Sincerely yours,
Pat Gray
L. Patrick Gray III,
Acting Director.
Mr. Gray. This stated in no uncertain terms that this was not a
pohtical group, gave its composition, and said if anj'thing this was a
liberal group and even went so far as to say I ought to go to speak to
them in order to try to convert them.
Mr. Chairman, I went to speak because I believe that I should
go to speak to all Americans; but if 3^ou asked me under oath if I
went because I got the memorandum from the White House, I will
saj' no, sir, I did not. I went for difTerent reasons.
The Chairman. What kind of speech did j^ou make?
jN'Ir. Gray. The title is in the exhibit and, as I remember it, it had
absolutely nothing to do with politics. And the speech, incidentally,
we have submitted — yes, it was entitled "Freedom Under Law," the
City Club of Cleveland August 11, 1972, and with the permission of
the chairman I would like to insert that speech in the record.
The Chairman. It will be admitted.
(Mr. Gray subsequently submitted the follo^^'ing document for the
record :)
U.S. Deaprtment of Justice,
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,
Friday, August 11, 1972.
"Freedom Under Law" — An Address by the Honorable L. Patrick Gray
III, Acting Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation
In January, 1787, our Minister to the Court of St. James — John Adams — sent
to the pi-inters a book which he thought might prove useful to his countrymen.
Shays' rebellion had recently occurred in Massachusetts, and friends there were
writing that confusion and anarchy lay just over the horizon. This rebellion was
viewed by some at home as the popular uprising inevitably leading to a dictator-
ship which would restore order and guarantee the security of life and property — at
the cost of freedmn.
John Adams wrote to convince his countrymen that a salutary restraint is a
vital principle of libertj'. He also wrote to persuade his fellow citizens that good
laws and orderly government alo7ie could protect lives, liberties, religion, property,
and character.
Later in that year of 1787 when our Constitution was drafted, the framers
placed the highest priority on freedom under law — not the one or the other, but
both together, "one and indivisible"!
Alexander Hamilton, a delegate to the Constitutional Convention and a princi-
pal author of The Federalist Papers, put it this way:
"Government is frequently . . . classed under two descriptions — a government
of force, and a government of laws; the first is the defuiition of despotism, (and)
the last of hberty."
The blueprint for self-government created by the delegates to the Constitutional
Convention came under immediate attack. There were more than a few, here and
abroad, who warned that our Constitution embodied too radical a departure from
conventional concepts of government. It was termed impractical, unworkable,
dangerous.
Today the attack continues — for the concept of free men and women governing
themselves for the common good is virtually as radical in the 20th Centurj- as it
was in the twilight of the ISth. And make no mistake — it is radical doctrine!
Our concept of freedom under law is banned, barred, forbidden and feared in
vast areas of the world where might makes right — where suppression wears the
uniform of the police and the robes of justice.
24
In our country today, there are strident voices proclaiming that the same
conditions exist in our land. We are told that American society is "sick" and that
law is used to repress freedom.
This is demagoguer}', pure and simple. It is a slander and a lie.
But still the questions persist: Where are tliese United States today, and where
are we going? How do we as American citizens evaluate ourselves? Do we believe
in our form of government? Does our government care about people? Is our
societ.y out of control? Are the law officers of the nation the tools of an oppressive
ruling establishment?
Well, what are the answers? I want to tell you what mine are.
The great American adventure born two centuries ago has gro'mi stronger
generation after generation.
We are on the threshold of the greatest growth pattern in our history — growth
in the quality of life for all our citizens — growth in our total effort to eradicate
the imperfections in human society (beginning, always, with our own).
We occupy seven percent of the land surface of the earth. We are six percent
of the world's population. We account for almost one-third of the goods and
services produced on earth.
Our national economy is bulwarked by increased earnings and a rising gross
national product.
Production, incomes, employment, business spending, and consumer buying are
all showing sharp increases.
The rate of inflation has been slowed.
We export foodstuffs, medicines, technology, and expertise to help feed,
comfort, and care for millions of men, women, and children around the world.
Material accomplishments, however, do not begin to tell our whole story.
Every citizen of the United States is guaranteed legal rights and protections
of a magnitude not found anywhere else in the world.
All have the promise of individual rights and liberties.
All have an awareness of those rights and liberties.
All have a guarantee of opportunity to full realization of their rights and liberties.
All have the assurance that our Government and body of citizens will support
them in the enjoyment of their rights and liberties.
Advantages such as these help make America the freest and most progressive
society in the world — more than "advantages," realities.
You wouldn't choose to live in any other country. Nor would I.
No, pessimism does not yet reign supreme in these United States.
But there are those who insist that our priceless liberties are being eroded —
that freedom is increasingly in jeopardy across the United States.
Two years ago, a well-known author and educator warned that repression
"comes to us . . . with official sanction and is imposed upon us by officials sworn
to uphold the law."
Who are these officials?
This author identified them as "the Attorney General, the FBI, state and local
officials, the police, and even judges."
Biased as I may be, / reject such an attack — and so do the great majority of
our citizens. The facts are otherwise, and we Americans are not about to accept
myths in their place.
The people of the United States know that the law enforcement profession is
dedicated to safeguarding the rights of all citizens — and that it demands of its
members exacting staiidards of fairness, impartiality, and restraint.
I do not for a moment suggest that abuses of authority are nonexistent among
law enforcement professionals.
Unfortunately, there have been abuses in the past — and as long as it's men and
women involved, there will be recurrences in the future.
But no profession is more zealous in policing its own ranks. We know the risks.
And we know that the confidence of those we serve must be maintained if we are
to discharge the trust and responsibility placed in our care.
As a Nation, we face a crime problem that has steadily been growing since
1955. Today, there are clear signs that the upward thrust of crime is being turned
back.
During the first quarter of 1972, crime registered its smallest increase — one
percent — in 11 years. (And none of us can rest until even that plus one becomes
zero, and then a minus.)
Eighty of our largest cities reported actual decreases in crime for this three-
month period— compared with 22 cities in 1970, and 59 in 1971.
Important successes are also being scored in the counteroffensive which the
law enforcement profession is pressing against organized crime.
25
These successes are being achieved within the provisions of our Constitution
and laws — and with the cooperation and support of the citizens of the United
States, who know that America's peace officers are guardians of their Uves,
their property, and their rights.
Let's look at a vital area of our freedoms — the right to a fair and impartial
trial as guaranteed all Americans by the Bill of Rights.
A slogan coined some weeks ago insists that militant extremists who have been
charged with crimes should be immune from prosecution in our courts of law.
"The only fair trial would be no trial at all," this slogan demands.
This is a "society-be-damned" slogan. It saj^s, in efiect, "Hide the evidence;
gag the witnesses; ignore the victim; create a privileged class under law."
Citizens of the United States rose above such a lopsided system of injustice
centuries ago.
We will not turn the calendar back.
One of the foremost advocates of categorical immunity is an acid-tongued
lawj'er who has warned of "laerverted use" of our courts to "inhibit, terrorize or
destroy persons who . . . have incurred . . . hatred, fear or mistrust."
The same advocate also alleges that our "judicial process" has been used "as
a form of political repression."
He is wrong on all counts — unless we are ready to concede that senseless acts
of violence, including murder, are legitimate forms of -political expression.
Those who define their lawless activity as political expression seek only to
exclude themselves from the legal structure established so long ago under the
Constitution, and from the inevitable consequences of their own acts.
Conduct clearly in violation of the law — regardless of the brand name applied
to such conduct — is still anathema to the preponderant majority of Americans.
The American still believes that the lawbreaker is to be arrested and tried as
prescribed by the law. Guilt or innocence is to be determined in accordance with
Constitutional principles and not by mob rule or pressure group tactics.
Today there are those among us who appear to prefer a life style far removed
from the mainstream of American society and that choice should be protected. But
they demand more.
Their battle cry is, "I want no part of your system, and I intend to destroy it.
But while I push for anarchj-, I will continue to insist on the protection afforded
me by the system that I attack — until it is so weak that it affords protection to no
one."
Yet they will continue to receive protection from the system they attack — from
the Congress, the Courts, the law enforcement profession — even while the same
Congress, Courts, and the men and women of law enforcement agencies work to
protect our legal sj'stem from these anarchists and separatists. We, at least, do
believe in freedom!
But let us not think that our Government of laws is in danger only from those
who openlj^ proclaim their goal to set aside the whole of the legal structure.
There is another enemy as well, less visible perhaps but just as insidious — per-
sons who in their own way weaken our society, damage our leadership principles,
and completely ignore the responsibilities of good citizenship.
Office holders who occasionally compromise principle or a public trust in ex-
change for gifts and favors, businessmen who pad their expense accounts and de-
flate their income tax returns, would be stunned if anyone said they were not
responsible and law-abiding citizens. They are — most of the time.
The workingman who patronizes after-hours bars and neighborhood book-
makers, those who buy merchandise at prices and under circumstances that clearl}^
suggest it is stolen, contribute to the survival of crime in our society — though they
would be aghast at being called criminals.
The president of a corporation who conspires to break the antitrust laws be-
cause it assures a certain profit, the procurement agent who deals in secret kick-
back agreements, may give the appearance of being model members of society and
each undoubtedly seeks to retain that image.
Yet, each of these persons, and myriad others like them who have a cavalier
attitude toward the law when it suits their purpose, attack the society of law from
within.
If the law is to be defended and obeyed except when it is inconvenient, then what
purpose is served? And what have we learned from the history and growth of our
Constitutional democracy?
Man is said to be destroying his own physical environment — almost through
careless disregard. And it should be obvious that man can destroy the social
environment in the same way — by his failure to appreciate the indivisibility of
freedom and the law. To be "law abiding" is no sometime thing!
26
Yes, there is a difference, a vast difference, between the bomber and the bettor,
the conspirator and the cheater. The one blasts, the other chips away. But each
weakens the stature of the law in our society.
The law enforcement officer — the peace officer — ^has the ])rime responsibility to
protect society from those who break or destroy or undermine tlie law.
But our society can never be protected from itself if responsible citizens, by a
subtle change in attitude toward the law, abandon their responsibilities as citizens
when it suits their purpose.
It is the duty of every citizen and the prime responsibility of leading citizens to
be conscious of the continual need for affirmative action to nourish our Govern-
ment of laws.
Everyone realizes the danger of continual attacks upon police officers and the
departments they serve. These attacks erode the capacity of the law enforcement
profession to uphold the peace that law should bring.
This same kind of attack is being made upon the society of law — from within —
by many who take the easy way out, who abrogate their responsibilities as citizens,
who do not care enough to uphold the tradition of our Constitution and its
authors.
Do not look just to the Congress, the Courts, or the law enforcement profession
to protect society from itself.
All of us as citizens have that responsibility. If we bear that responsibility
lightly — and only when it suits us— we jeopardize the society of law just as do the
anarchists, the separatists, the criminal neophytes, and the professional forces of
organized crime.
Our pledge must be to continue to be worthy of our matchless heritage.
Our course as a Nation is unmistakably onward and upward. Time and again
we have proven that freedom under law does work.
Our Government cares about our people. Our police officers are protectors, not
oppressors. Our society is not out of control.
As human beings, we do not claim perfection. But it is an enormous triumph
that man with all his faults dares to reach for the stars. This is his ultimate glory.
The Chairman. Now, the charge has been made that you fired
people for political reasons. Would you care to comment on that?
Mr. Gray. That I have done what, sir? I am sorry.
The Chairman. You fired people for poHtical reasons.
Mr. Gray. I have had no political reason whatsoever to fire anyone
in the Federal Bureau of Investigation. I did it for entirely different
reasons, and if the committee would desire, if the chairman would
desire, I would submit a detailed accounting of every resignation or
retirement that has occurred in the Federal Bureau of Investigation
since I came in as Acting Director.
The Chairman. That is a decision that the committee will have to
make.
When did you first hear of the Watergate affair?
Mr. Gray. It was a Saturday, June 17. I am trying to think. I
think I had already gotten into the automobile in Los Angeles. I was
supposed to leave Los Angeles at 9 :30 that morning and go down to
Santa Ana to deliver the commencement address at Pepperdine
University Law School. I think I had already gotten into the auto-
mobile and was en route and when we arrived at Santa Ana, I believe
that the resident, the senior resident agent there, gave me the first
indication. Yes, "Between 11 a.m. and 11:30 a.m. Pacific daylight
time resident agent, Santa Ana, briefed Mr. Gray." That is the
first indication that I had, any information I had regarding Watergate.
The Chairman. What instructions, if any, did you give?
Mr. Gray. Right at that time, I didn't give any instructions to
that individual. I waited until I could get to a telephone and I called
my No. 2 man, Mr. Felt, W. Mark Felt, and I obtained additional
information from him. That was at 12:04 p.m. Pacific daylight
27
time and 3:04 p.m. Eastern daylight time, and I got additional
information from him at that time regarding the facts and circum-
stances, and they were coming in pretty fast. I asked him if we really
had jurisdiction in this matter and if we were in it up to the hilt, and
he told me that the case was first, as I recall now, was first considered
to be a burglary in the early morning hours.
Then there was some thought it was a bombing and then electronic
devices were seen there. Our people knew instantly this was an inter-
cept of communications case, or at least we thought it was, and we
started in right away.
The Chairman. What were your instructions?
Mr. Gray. I told him to go to the hilt and spare no horses.
The Chairman. Was that done?
Mr. Gray. Yes, sir, that has been done and those instructions were
repeated. You know these were just the first phone calls. I had ad-
ditional phone calls that day, those instructions were repeated. Those
instructions were also related by Mr. Felt to the Attorney General of
the United States, who concurred in my decision to conduct an aggres-
sive investigation. Certainly it was obvious to me as the facts began
to come in, and particularly at about, well, it was later on that evening
when I learned the identity of one of these indi\dduals. It was 3 :45 p.m.
Pacific daylight time that I was called and actually FBI headquarters
advised the Los Angeles office to ad^^se as to AlcCord being identi-
fied as an ex-FBI agent and security officer for the Committee to
Reelect the President, and when I got that information I knew that
we were in a situation that could have all kinds of possibilities. I
didn't know quite what we had hold of, but I was not such a naive
jackass as to think that the credibility of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, as an investigative agency, was not going to be on the
line in this one.
The Chairman. You mean it would be on the line.
Mr. Gray. That is right. It would be right on the line.
The Chairman. Well now, what kind of investigation was con-
ducted? Did you direct it?
Mr. Gray. I directed it from the standpoint that I set the tone,
and time and again during the days that ensued and during the
telephone conversations that followed I emphasized the aggressive
nature of the investigation vv'e must conduct. At all times the Attorney
General concurred in that, a,nd that was the type of investigation
that we conducted. In setting out the instructions to the Washington
field office, which was the office of origin, and in all the other instruc-
tions that went out, we had the general instructions to the effect
that this was to be given the highest priority, to be i^ursued with
vigor. The special agent in charge was to take it under his personal
control, and was to utilize whatever special agents were necessary
to promptly pursue the investigative leads sent to that particular
field division.
The Chairman. Now, did you, or anyone else to your knowledge,
state who should be checked on, who should not be checked on?
Mr. Gray. No, sir, because this was a very, very fast developing
investigation, and I can state that there were no restrictions or limi-
tations placed. Really, you have the feeling sitting in my position
that when you push that button and whenever you say give it an
28
aggressive and, in the words of the FBI, full court press, they are
going all out, and that is the way they went.
The Chairman. What is your policy now, or what would be your
policy, if committee members, and committee members only, were
desirous of seeing that file?
Mr. Gray. I have taken a position, Mr. Chairman, from day 1 —
and even though I am well aware of the precedential nature of the
statement I am about to make, and even though I am well aware it
could be interpreted to shatter precedent, I feel that this situation
is so unique that it can be distinguished from any other, so that the
offer I am about to make cannot be utilized later on as an entrance
way into the files of the Federal Bureau of Investigation which I
A\dll continue to resist — but I am prepared to offer, and I have been
prepared from the inception, that any Member of the U.S. Senate,
this committee or any Member of the U.S. Senate, who wishes to
examine the investigative file of the Federal Bureau of Investigation
in this matter may do so, and I will provide knowledgeable, experi-
enced, special agents to sit do^vn with that Member and respond to
any question that Member has.
The Chairman. There would be present an official of the Bureau
at all times?
Mr. Gray. Correct, sir, that is what I am saying.
The Chairman. That no staff member would be permitted?
Mr. Gray. No, su', I would not go beyond the offer that I have
made because of the nature of these records.
The Chairman. I certainly think — now these are the raw files?
Mr. Gray. They are, sir. They are memorandums, the whole works,
we have nothing to hold back.
The Chairman. I certainly tliink there should be no leaks, and I
agreed mth Mr. Hoover, and certainly agree with you, that the raw
files of the FBI should never be publicized. I have seen too many.
Mr. Gray. I certainly agree with you, Mr. Chairman, because the
integrity of those files, I think, is one of the most sacred trusts com-
mitted to us if we are to carry out the mission given to us by the
Congress and the President.
The Chairman. Senator McClellan.
Senator McClellan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I Avill defer the questions I have at this time. But I want to express
my appreciation to Mr. Gra}^ for a very frank, candid and informa-
tive and, I think, a helpful statement that he has made here in the
opening of these hearings. On the basis of that statement, of course,
he would be entitled to confirmation but since there are challenges
and accusations which, if proven, might be worthy of consideration,
I will withhold any pledge of support of his confirmation. But I do
want to state that I have noted \\dth interest and approval some of
the changes he has made in the brief time that he has been Actmg
Director of the Bureau, and I commend him for apparently being
aggressive and mo^dng in and trying to examine, thoroughly examine,
the processes and the traditions and procedures of this institution
and making changes that do, in my judgment, bring about some
improvement. It will never be perfect, but it is an institution in our
Government that certainly serves every citizen in this countr3^ But
there should be no favoritism in it; there should be a dedication to
the functions and to the objectives of those functions which it is
authorized to perform.
29
I will withhold, Mr. Chairman, any questions at this time. I am
sure Mr. Gray will be back with us before the proceedings are over
and at that time I will have, I think, some questions based upon the
accusations against him.
Mr. Gray. Thank you, Senator McClellan, and I appreciate
your position.
The Chairman. Senator Ervin.
Senator Ervin. Mr. Gray, as I understand, you joined the personal
staff of Vice President Richard Nixon in June 1960?
Mr. Gray. Yes, Senator Ervin. I retired from the Tj.S. Navy on
June 30, 1960, and went over to room 361, Senate Office Building,
which was the office of the then Vice President, Richard Nixon.
Senator Ervin. How long did you remain a member of the personal
staff?
Mr. Gray. From shortly after June 30, 1960, until about January 6,
1961. I am not sure of that January 6 date, but I know I went back
to Connecticut to practice law in early January. I may have a slippage
on that date but that is pretty close.
Senator Ervin. It is understandable that a person cannot remember
a specific date.
Did you continue in the practice of law in Connecticut until you
became Executive Assistant to Robert H. Finch, Secretary of the
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare in January 1969?
Mr. Gray. Yes, sir; I did.
Senator Ervin. And you remained with him until you became
Assistant Attorney General of the Linited States in charge of the
Civil Division and Director of the Office of Alien Property, Department
of Justice in December 1970.
Mr. Gray. It is correct. Senator, that I joined the Justice Depart-
ment in December 1970. I had left HEW in January of that year to
resume private practice.
Senator Ervin. Did you remain in that position until you were
appointed Acting Director of the FBI?
Mr. Gray. I had two positions later on. On February 15 of 1972,
I was nominated to be Deputy Attorney General. I became Deputy
Attorney General-designate, and Attorney General Kleindienst and
I began a transition period regarding the duties of his office, and I
was serving as Deputy Attorney General-designate and as Assistant
Attorney General in charge of the Civil Division and Director of the
Office of Alien Property until I was named Acting Director of the
FBI, sir.
Senator Ervin. Now, as I understand it, you made 16 speeches
between July 13, 1972, and the general election on November 7,
1972, is that correct?
Mr. Gray. The numbers I am not sure, but if j^ou are taking them
from the exhibit, Senator, and counting off, why I will accept your
count on them. I have not counted the number of them m that
period.
Senator Ervin. Would 3^ou mind just stating very briefly the
general type of theme that you emphasized in those speeches?
Mr. Gray. I think, Senator, I would have to say that for the first
time in m}^ life as an American, I had a forum where I could get up
and talk about America and somebody would listen to me. Basically I
would say the theme of those speeches is that America is a great and
91-331 — ^73 3
30
good land and a land populated by good people. Those speeches were
made with pride in my heart for our Nation. They were made along
constitutional lines because I am interested in constitutional history,
always have been, and they were made along lines of law enforce-
ment. But I can say to this committee under oath that I did not
design, write, plan or intend any one of those speeches to be political
speeches and as I said in my opening statement, I would submit to
the fair consideration and judgment of the members of this committee
and the Members of the U.S. Senate as to whether or not I am correct.
You may look at them differently^ but I am telling you how I entered
upon them.
Senator Ervin. I infer that the speeches 3'ou made during this
time might be designated as patriotic speeches, extolling the virtues
of America, and speeches dealing with law enforcement problems?
Mr. Gray. That is correct, sir.
Senator Ervin. Now, in the speech that jow put in the record,
"Freedom Under Law," which j^ou made before the City Club of
Cleveland, Ohio, on August 11, 1972, you stated:
Our national economy is bulwarked by increased earnings and a rising gross
national product.
Production, incomes, emploj-ment, business spending, and consumer buying
are all showing sharp increases.
The rate of inflation has been slowed.
We export foodstuffs, medicines, technology, and expertise to help feed, comfort,
and care for millions of men, women, and children around the world.
Now a person might place an interpretation on that passage, in
view of the particular issues that had been joined between President
Nixon and Senator George McGovern, that it was calculated to help
President Nixon and hurt Senator McGovern, coidd he not?
• Mr. Gray. I think someone could draw that conclusion but I
think properly to interpret it and place it in perspective, you have to
see what came before it. I was addressing myself to those voices in
our land who say that American society is sick and that law is used to
repress freedom, and I characterized that as demagoguery, pure and
simple. Then I went on to say:
But still the questions persist : Where are these United States today, and where
are we going? How do we as American citizens evaluate ourselves? Do we believe
in our form of government? Does our government care about people?
The Chairman. Speak a little louder, please,
Mr. Gray. I am sorry. [Reading:!
The great American adv'enture born two centuries ago has grown stronger
generation after generation.
We are on the threshold of the greatest growth pattern in our history —
And I went on along those lines and then I tried to show the positive
exam.ples, but certain!}^ I would have to admit to j^ou that an individ-
ual could draw that other conclusion.
But I ^^'ill sav to you again, Senator Ervin, under oath, that this was
not planned, designed, or intended to be a political speech and I don't
think anybody who heard it in Cleveland interpreted it as a political
speech.
Senator Ervin. I infer from your testimony that you give the com-
mittee your assurance that neither this speech nor am^ other speech
you delivered during that time was intended to have political conse-
quences?
31
■ Mt. Gray. I gave that assurance to this committee, and I gave thafc
assurance to m3self then and I do now. I did not do it and I would noi
do it. I would be in flagrant violation of the instructions from the
President of the United States.
Senator Ervin. On October 27, 1972, you publicly stated in an
official release that since around 1950 the FBI has gathered and main-
tained so-called biographical data on Members of Congress and candi-
dates for Congress. When did you and how did you first learn of this
practice?
Mr. Gray. Senator Ervin, j^ou will recall that you sent me a letter
on this subject, a very thorough letter. In fact the questions were
designed to probe, and the}^ did probe, and I sent a response to you. I
have not asked 3^our permission but I would now ask your permission
and the permission of the chairman that a copy of this letter be
inserted in the record.
Senator Ervin. You made a ver^^ full response to my request for
information on this point. I think it would be illuminating and would
obviate some of ni}^ questions if my letter to Air. Gray and his reply
to me were inserted in the record, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. It ^^^ll be admitted at this point.
Mr. Gray. Thank you, sir.
(Mr. Gray subsequently submitted the following documents for the
record :)
United States Senate,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights,
Washington, D.C., Noveviher 3, 1972.
Hon. L. Patrick Gray III,
Acting Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Washington, D.C.
Dear Mr. Gray: As you know, in the course of the Subcommittee's study of
government data collection, I have sent a number of lettci-s, beginning in June,
1970, asking the Justice Department and the FBI to detail all of their programs
of data collection respecting individuals not employed bj' the Federal Govern-
ment, and certain programs invi)lving those persons as well. Since the responses
I have received so far from the Department and the Bureau were presumably
■intended to be complete replies to my requests, I am concerned about the existence
of yet another program, that respecting Congressmen and Senators, which was
noi alluded to in past correspondence from the Department or the Bureau.
In any case, I am extremely disturbed by press reports and a statement disr
tributed by your office on October 27 concerning a Bureau program involving the
collection of information on incumbents and candidates for federal office. Although
the reports are contradictor}' and extremely sparse in detail, it appears that the
Bureau has regularly been compiling information on elected Representatives and
Senators and on their opponents for decades. The statement and other documents
released from your office states that the practice in one form or another started as
far back as 1950, and presumably had two purposes; to assist the Bureau in its
Congressional relations and to aid in protecting the persons concerned against
"violent offenses" against them.
These stated justifications require elaboration. It is my understanding that the
Bureau, as an agency within the Justice Department, relies on the Attorney
General's office for its Congressional relations. And, to my knowledge, crimes
against federal legislators were not made federal offenses uncil 1968. In any case,
it is not immediately apparent how the program could have assisted the Bureau
in performing either of these two functions.
Because of these and other unresolved issues surrounding the program, I shoul<|
like your response to the following questions:
1. When was the jirogram begun? Was it instituted by formal or informal direo;-
tive? By whose order in the Bureau? the Justice Department? elsewhere? Pleas?
Bupply copies of the directives wliich ordered the initiation of this program. Please
32
supply copies of all Departmental and Bureau directives, orders, regulations,
"routing slip directives," and other written instructions describing the program,
its purposes and the responsibilities of Bureau agents in carrying it out, including
those of January 13, 1972, August 7, September 13 and September 19, 1972.
2. List the persons or categories of persons about whom information was collect-
ed under the program. Please list separately those members of the 92nd Congress
about whom information was and was not collected under this program. List
separately those nonincumbent candidates for federal office about whom informa-
tion was and was not collected. What has been the policy with respect to the dis-
posal or destruction of information collected upon persons after they are no
longer Members of Congress, or candidates for office? Is the information retained
or destroyed? If the information is retained, how many separate individuals had
files maintained on them in the Bureau as of October 27? What was the reason for
retaining information on persons no longer Members of Congress or candidates?
3. Under what authority was it initiated and conducted? Under what authority
has the Bureau been charged with investigating "violent offenses" committed
against each of the categories of persons included under the program before 1968?
after 1968? Please supply copies of Departmental and Bureau regulations under
which it was authorized, together with citations and copies of the statutory and
other authority from which the authority stems.
4. Please describe in detail the types of information collected, the sources relied
upon, and the methods used for collecting the information. Include, of course,
both covert and overt collection methods. Please supply copies of all instructions
to Bureau employees governing the kinds of information desired, and methods of
collecting such information. Please explain the terms "readily available sources,"
"reference publications," "local files" and "local publications," and identify rep-
presentative examples of each. What information in "local files" was used, and
how was it collected? What kinds of biographic data was collected? What sources,
not readily available to the public or not published, were used. Please submit
copies of representative "dossiers" or collections of information on incumbents
aiid candidates prepared under this program, suitably sanitized to protect the
identity of the individuals involved, but in sufficient detail to enable the Sub-
committee to determine the scope, methods, and contents of the program.
5. Please describe the uses to which the information was put, both as a matter
of regulation and as a matter of tradition or practice. Please submit copies of all
regulations, directives or instructions governing use and access to this information.
List also the names or titles of all individuals within the Bureau, the Justice
Department, and other government offices, including the White House, who were
authorized or who in practice actually did have access to such information from
time to time. List also all persons by name or title not connected with the above
offices, who were authorized or did, in fact, have access to such information.
6. Please describe how this information was stored or maintained. For example,
was it in field offices or in Washington Headquarters; in separate dossiers, or as
part of other records such as the "Crime Records;" separate from the general
files or as part of them; in manual files or in other form?
7. Please describe your efforts since taking office to determine the existence of
such a program. Did you inquire into the possible existence of such a program
prior to this weekend? What was the result of your inquiry? To what do you
attribute the discrepancy, if any, between the results of your earlier inquiry and
the information which has just come to light? Do you feel the inquiry or the reply
was inadequate? Do you plan anj^ administrative action as a result? If so, what?
8. What will become of the program in question? Please submit copies of aU
directives and instructions which will govern future collection and retention of
information on elected federal officials and other persons subject to this program.
Will the existing files be destroj^ed? Please state when and in what manner.
Will any copies be retained, either by the Bureau or by any other officer or official
of the Government? Are anj^ copies of such files held elsewhere than in the Bureau,
to your knowledge? Will subjects of these files be informed of the existence or
contents of files on them, or be permitted to review them prior to their destruction?
9. Does the Bureau have any program of collecting information on federal
elected officials, other than the one under inquiry? If so, please answer the above
questions for each such program. Are similar programs in effect for candidates
of other federal offices, either elected or appointed? For state offices, such as
governor or state representative, or for local offices? If so, please answer the above
questions for each such program.
I am also disturbed about press reports of requests from members of the White
House office, John Ehrlichman for one, that the Bureau collect and supply
33
information to assist in the presidential campaign. These reports refer to an order
issued in your name on September 8 and returnable on September 11. The report,
in Time magazine of Monday, October 30, is enclosed.
I would appreciate a detailed response to the allegations contained in this
article, plus copies of the supposed order and any similar ones issued during the
time you have been Acting Director. I would also appreciate copies of any other
requests, oral or written, from officials in the Justice Department, the White
House, or elsewhere in the Executive Branch for information of a similar nature
or for a similar purpose, whether or not the request was compUed with. Please
include a description of the Bureau's response in each case, together with copies
of relevant documents, directives, etc.
I appreciate that the above responses may take some time to prepare. Under
the circumstances, I know you can understand the importance of a prompt and
comprehensive reply to this inquiry. May I request that you respond as quickly as
possible with the information you have readily at your command, saving further
replies as more information becomes available.
With kindest wishes,
Sincerely,
Sam J. Ervin, Jr.,
Chairman.
January 12, 1973.
Hon. Sam J. Ervin, Jr.,
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.
Dear Senator Ervin: I regret that my illness followed by surgery has delayed
this response to your letter of November 3, 1972. Also, I am grateful to have this
opportunity to set forth the facts concerning the reports that for some years the
FBI has been collecting biographical data on Congressional candidates.
In the release I made concerning this particular program on October 27, 1972,
I stated it was being discontinued because it is not essential to FBI operations,
and "I believe it is obvious that it can be misinterpreted easily as a program to
investigate Congressmen and Congressional candidates." A copy of that release
is enclosed for your ready reference.
Not only was the program misinterpreted, but so was my release. For example,
the pages from "Time" magazine of November 6, 1972, which you enclosed
with your letter contained the following paragraph:
"Gray revealed last week that he is discontinuing a 22-year FBI practice of
maintaining biographical data on Congressional candidates. He said that the
information had been used mainly to help check out any threats made against
them."
Neither of those sentences is accurate. I did not say the FBI would stop main-
taining biographical data on Congressional candidates. Such a statement would
imply that FBI personnel could not even maintain copies of the "Congressional
Directory," copies of "Who's Who," or even daily newspapers which contain
biographical data on Congressional candidates. Neither did I say that the infor-
mation had been used mainly to check out threats made against the candidates.
I stated the purpose of the program was to provide briefing material for FBI
officials who might desire it before calling on newly elected Congressmen and
Senators, adding that later it became apparent the information could be of use
in investigations dealing with oflFenses against Members or Members-elect of
Congress under the provisions of Public Law 91-644.
A number of the news accounts I saw concerning my announcement of October
27, 1972, contained implications that the FBI was compihng secret dossiers on
Members of Congress and the inference could easily be drawn from these accounts
that there was some sinister motive involved. The FBI's record, I believe, leaves
no doubt that it has been in the forefront of protecting individual freedoms rather
than trying to encroach upon them.
Your understanding that the FBI relies on the Department of Justice for its
Congressional relations is accurate insofar as legislative matters are concerned;
however, due to the many inquiries and requests for information which we receive
from Members of Congress, it has been necessary to maintain a Congressional
Services Unit within the FBI to respond to these requests Assaults on Federal
legislators were not made Fedcx-al offenses until 1971; however. Federal legislators,
like all citizens have been covered for many years under laws such as those regard-
ing kidnapping and extortion. But let me reiterate, the information collected under
the program in question was gathered to assist FBI officials responsible for
rendering services to the Congress.
34
_• Before responding to your questions, let me describe for you tlie program that
I ordered discontinued and how it operated. I beheve this will greatly enhance
the understanding of this matter.
Around 1950, the officials of the FBI then responsible for dealing with the
Congress decided it would be most beneficial to them if they had some biographi-
cal data on newly elected Members and a knowledge of any prior contacts by
FBI representatives with these new Congressmen and Senators. Initially, they
orally requested FBI field office officials to furnish the desired information. In
1960, the practice was begun of requesting such information bj' sending routing
islips to the various FBI field offices. This has been followed each election year
since that time.
■ The information was gathered for our own internal use and not in response
to anjr regulation or statute. At first, information was sought only on nonin-
cumbent candidates for Congress. In 1960, the requests were expanded to include
lionincumbent candidates for Governorships, since FBI officials also felt their
contacts v.-ith Governors could be enhanced by some prior knowledge of the
individual's background.
No investigation was condnded to secure this information, and no investigative
file was opened either in the field o_ffices or at FBI Headquarters. The biographical
information was collected by individual Agents covering the home area of the
candidate. It was gathered from local newspapers, campaign brochures, and
reference books such as city directories or books which publish biographical
information — all sources readily available to the general public. This information
was augmented by a summary of any data already in the files of the field office.
This might include correspondence exchanged with the candidate; memoranda
concerning personal contacts; results of investigations involving the candidate,
either as a subject, a victim, a witness, or a reference; or information voluntarily
submitted to the FBI.
The material collected by the field office was sent to FBI Headquarters where
it would be held until the results of the election were known. If the candidate
was defeated in his bid for office, all of the material submitted by the field office
would be promptl}' destroyed and no record of it kept. If the candidate was suc-
cessful, a memorandum summarizing the material submitted by the field office
would be prepared. Into this summary memorandum also would be incorporated
a brief abstract of any information already contained in the files at FBI head-
quarters.
Here again, the information might include correspondence exchanged with
the candidate ; memoranda concerning personal contacts ; results of investigations
involving the candidate, either as a subject, a victim, a witness, or a reference;
or information voluntarily submitted to the FBI. The raw material forwarded
by the field office would be destroyed, and only the summary memorandum would
be retained and incorporated into FBI files.
Now to your specific questions.
1. When was the program begun? Was it instituted by formal or informal
directive? By whose order in the Bureau? the Justice Department? elsewhere?
Please supply copies of the directives which ordered the initiation of this program.
Please supply copies of all Departmental and Bureau directives, orders, regula-
tions, "routing slip directives," and other written instructions describing the
program, its purposes and the responsibilities of Bureau agents in carrying it
out, including those of January 13, 1972, August 7, September 13 and September
19, 1972.
, The program was begun around 19.30 on an informal basis and apparently on
oral instructions of a former Assistant to the Director. Copies of the only written
instructions we are able to locate concerning this program are enclosed. These
include the routing slips sent to various FBI field offices this year under dates of
January 13, August 7, September 13, and September 19, 1972, and routing slips
sent to various FBI field offices in 1970 under dates of July 12 and October 6,
1970. The latter two items were retained only as samples, and no copies of such
communications to the field offices sent out in prior years have been retained.
2. List the persons or categories of persons about whom im'ormation was
collected under the program. Please list separately those members of the 92nd
Congress about whom information was and was not collected under this program.
List separately those nonincumbent candidates for federal office about whom
information was and was not collected. What has been the policy with respect
to the disposal or destruction of information collected upon persons after they
axe no longer Members of Congress, or candidates for office? Is the information
35
retained or destroyed? If the information is retained, how many separate indi-
viduals had files maintained on them in the Bureau as of October 27? What was
the reason for retaining informati on on persons no longer Members of Congress
or candidates?
Information was sought under this program on major nonincumbent Congres-
sional candidates. Biographical data was collected on each Member of the 92nd
Congress who had not previoufcly served in the Congress. No data was collected
on incumbents since biographical data on them is published in the "Congressional
Directory." Congressional candidates were the only candidates for Feaeral office
on whom biographical data was collected. If the candidate was defeated, no
information concerning him collected under this program was retained, the in-
formation being promptly destroyed as soon as results of the election were con-
firmed. Data collected on successful candidates was summarized in a memorandun^
prepared for the information of FBI officials which subsequently became a part
of the FBI's general files. Preparation of such memoranda was started in late
1954. The so-called "raw material," which generally was in the form of newspaper
clippings, campaign brochures, or excerpts therefrom, was never made a part of
FBI records and has been destroyed. Information collected in this program on all
present Members of Congress as well as former Members goirig back about 20
years is maintained in FBI records. The FBI does not have authority to destroy
information contained in its records, and this a])plies whether the person is a
Member of Congress, a candidate, or a private citizen.
3. Under what authority was it initiated and conducted? Under what authority
has the Bureau been charged with investigating "violent offenses" committed
against each of the categories of persons included under the program before 1968?
After 1968? Please supply copies of Departmental and Bureau regulations under
wliich it was authorized, together with citations and copies of the statutory and
other authority from which the authority stems.
The program was not in response to any statute or regulation. It was begun
informally on oral instructions from an official of the FBI whose purpose was to
obtain biographical data to assist him and other FBI personnel in carrying out
their responsibihties in dealing with INlembers of Congress. As to the authority
under which the FBI has been charged with investigating violent offenses com-
mitted against persons included under the program, I already have referred to
Public Law 91-644 enacted in 1971. Also, as I mentioned earher. Members of
Congress and candidates have been covered, as have all persons, under Federal
laws dealing with such crimes as kidnaping and extortion. As previously indicated,
the only written instructions we were able to locate concerning this program are
the routing slips sent out to the field offices in 1970 and 1972.
4. Please describe in detail the types of information collected, the sources relied
upon, and the methods used for collecting the information. Include, of course, both
covert and overt collection methods. Please supply copies of all instructions to
Bureau employees governing the kinds of information desired, and methods of
collecting such information. Please explain the terms "readily available sources,"
"reference publications," "local files" and "local pubhcations," and identify repre-
sentative examples of each. What information in "local files" was used, and how
was it collected? What kinds of biographic data was collected? What sources, not
readily available to the public or not published, were used. Please submit copies
of representative "dossiers" or collections of information on incumbents and
candidates prei^ared under this program, suitably sanitized to protect the identity
of the individuals involved, but in suificient detail to enable the Subcommittee
to determine the scope, methods, and contents of the program.
The information requested from the field offices was biographical in nature
together with a summarization of any data which might already be in the field
office files. The biographical data came from news articles, campaign literature,
and standard reference publications such as "Who's Who" and Martindale-
Hubbell. Frequently, the information was submitted merely by forwarding copies
of the news articles or campaign literature to FBI Headquarters or by copying
the pertinent data from the news articles or the reference publications. No covert
collection methods were used. The routing slips previously referred to contain all
the instructions sent to the field offi.ces regarding this program. "Readily available
.sources" means those public sources which are available to any citizen, such as
newspapers, magazines, and campaign literature. "Reference publications"
means such items as "Who's Who," Martindale-Hubbell, and city directories.
"Local files" refers to the files of the FBI field offices. "Local publications" means
newspapers and other periodicals published in the local area. Information la
36
"local files" could be the results of prior investigations concerning the candidate
in which he may have been a subject of the investigation, the victim of some crime
being investigated, or a witness or reference interviewed. The information could
concern previous contacts between the candidate and FBI representatives, or it
could be information volunteered to the FBI. The kind of biographical data col-
lected is the same type as that which is published about Members of Congress
in the "Congressional Directory," and I know of no sources, except for local and
Headquarters FBI files, not readily available to the general public which were
used in the collection of this data. I am not at liberty to furnish copies of the
summary memoranda prepared from the material collected under this program;
however, I can advise you that I am giving serious consideration and study to the
ultimate disposition of the summary memoranda prepared as the end product of
this Congressional Relations program.
5. Please describe the uses to which the information was put, both as a matter
of regulation and as a matter of tradition or practice. Please submit copies of all
regulations, directives or instructions governing use and access to this information.
List also the names or titles of all individuals within the Bureau, the Justice
Department, and other government offices, including the White House, who were
authorized or who in practice actually did have access to such information from
time to time. List also all persons by name or title not connected with the above
offices, who were authorized or did, in fact, have access to such information.
As indicated, the primary use of the information gathered under this program
was to assist FBI personnel responsible for contacts with the Congress. It was
helpful to them to know what, if any, prior experience the newly elected Members
might have had concerning law enforcement activities or of any prior contacts
they may have had with FBI personnel. Likewise, it was important to know if the
new Member had been the subject of any prior FBI investigation, such as an ap-
plicant investigation, or had been the victim of any crime investigated by the
FBI. There are no special regulations or instructions governing the use of and
access to this information. All FBI personnel have access to information in the
files of the FBI if they need the information in connection with their official
functions. No information in FBI files is available to anyone outside the FBI
unless through official dissemination to another Executive Branch agency as part
of the results of an investigation or in answer to an official inquiry regarding a
specific individual. Our dissemination policy is the same with respect to all per-
sons whether they be public officials or private citizens — the information is dis-
seminated outside the FBI only in connection with official investigations or in
response to official inquiries. Therefore, it is not possible to identify by name or
title all of the individuals who might have access to such information.
6. Please describe how this information was stored or maintained. For example,
was it in field offices or in Washington Headquarters; in separate dossiers, or as
part of other records such as the "Crime Records;" separate from the general
files or as part of them; in manual files or in other form?
The information gathered under the program in question was recorded in a single
summary memorandum which was incorporated into the general records of the
FBI at FBI Headquarters.
7. Please describe your efforts since taking office to determine the existence of
such a program. Did you inquire into the possible existence of such a program
prior to this weekend? What was the result of your inquiry? To what do you
attribute the discrepancy, if an.y, between the results of your earlier inquirj^ and
the information which has just come to light? Do you feel the inquiry or the reply
was inadequate? Do you plan any administrative action as a result? If so, what?
I must assume that this question is directed to the statement made by me on
numerous occasions to the effect that I had not located any secret files or political
dossiers within the files of the FBI. I did not specifically ask the Assistant Director
of the Crime Records Division if his Division maintained .secret files or political
dossiers, nor did I ever ask anyone in the FBI if we maintained files on Con-
gressional or other political candidates. My inquiries were directed solely to the
maintenance of secret files or political dossiers and these were made to all mem-
bers of the Executives Conference of the FBI on several occasions when the sub-
ject came up for discussion and to the senior officials of the Files and Communi-
cations Division of the FBI on numerous occasions.
No one of us in the FBI ever considered that the summary memorandum, the
product of the program I terminated on October 27, 1972, constituted a secret
file or a political dossier. It is for this reason that I believe the existence of this
program was not reported to me in response to my inquiries. I have ordered a
thorough inquiry into this matter, and I am now in the process of completing
my review of the entire matter.
37
8. What will become of the program in question? Please submit copies of all
directives and instructions which will govern future collection and retention of
information on elected federal officials and other persons subject to this program.
Will th^ existing files be destroyed? Please state when and in what manner. Will
any copies be retained, either by the Bureau or by any other officer or official of
the Government? Are any copies of such files held elsewhere than in the Bureau,
to your knowledge? Will subjects of these files be informed of the existence or
contents of files on them, or be permitted to review them prior to their
destruction?
The program was discontinued on October 27, 1972, and all information which
had been collected under it this year was promptly destroyed. My instructions in
this regard were issued orall^y, not in writing. I am giving serious consideration
and stud}' to the ultimate disposition of the summary memoranda prepared based
on the information collected under this program.
9. Does the Bureau have any program of collecting information on federal
elected officials, other than the one under inquiry? If so, please answer the
above questions for each such program. Are similar programs in effect for
candidates of other federal offices, either elected or appointed? For state offices,
such as governor or state representative, or for local offices? If so, please
answer the above questions for each such program.
The FBI has no program to collect information on Federal elected or appointed
officials and this particular program has been terminated. Where there is a
requirement for an official investigation, the FBI will collect such information,
such as for a Presidential appointment. As previously indicated, the Congressional
program was expanded in 1960 to include nonincumbent candidates for Governor;
however, this Congressional program has been terminated.
In response to the allegations in the "Time" Magazine article you referred to
in your letter, I enclose for your information a copy of a memorandum setting forth
the facts and circumstances as we know them.
Sincerely yours,
L. Patrick Gray, III,
Adijig Director.
U.S. Department of Justice,
Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Washington, B.C., October 27, 1972.
For immediate release.
"The FBI is not investigating and has not investigated Members of Congress
or Congressional candidates," Acting FBI Director L. Patrick Gray, III, de-
clared today. "The only exceptions have been where a Member was alleged to
have violated a Federal law or where the Member is being considered for a top-
level Government appointment.
"It has just come to my attention," he said, "that since 1950 personnel at FBI
Headquarters responsible for dealing with Congress have, as a matter of routine
practice, gathered biographical data on major candidates for the House of Repre-
sentatives and the Senate from newspapers, magazines, campaign literature, and
various reference publications. FBI Field Offices from time to time have been
requested, by means of a routing slip directive, to assist bj^ providing information
that was readily available from local files and local publications.
"Initially, the purpose of this was to provide briefing material for FBI officials
who might desire it before making a call on a newly elected Congressman or
Senator. In short, the routine was a part of the Congressional relations program
of the FBI. Later, following the enactment of Public Law 91-644 dealing in part
with violent offenses against Members of Congress and Members of Congress-
Elect, it became apparent that such information would be of immediate use in
following investigative leads arising in the event such an offense were to be
committed against a Member or a Member-Elect of Congress.
"I became aware of this program," Mr. Gray continued, "as a result of inquiries
alleging that an FBI Agent in Lorain County, Ohio, had been making inquiries
about the background of the Democratic candidate for Congress in Ohio's 13th
District. This Agent's inquiries were not authorized, and were in violation of
specific instructions that the gathering of information on Congressional candi-
dates is to be made from readily available published sources only, and not through
any outside inquiries. The FBI is conducting an internal administrative investi-
gation of this Agent's actions to determine why this instruction was not followed.
38
"At the same time," Mr. Gray continued, "because the program of gathering,
briefing material on Congressmen and Congressional candidates has been brought
to my attention through this incident, I have given consideration to the need for
such a program. Such a program is not essential to FBI operations, and I believe
it is obvious that it can be misinterpreted easil.v as a program to investigate
Congressmen and Congressional candidates. Therefore, I have decided to termi-
nate this program as of today."
FBI Routing Slips
January 13, 1972.
Re Coming elections.
Primaries will be held this year in each state to nominate candidates for Congress
(House and Senate) and some Governors. Pertinent background information
and data from your files on major non-incumbent candidates in your district
should be forwarded informally by routing slip, not letter, to Crime Records
as soon as they are nominated. Under no circumstances should you make outside
inquiries such as checks of credit bureaus or newspaper morgues. Public source
material readily available to .you and data from your files will suffice. Continue
to furnish pertinent data as it develops between the primary and general election.
Also be alert for any special elections to fill Congressional vacancies and submit
pertinent data on the major candidates before the election date. These matters
must always be handled with extreme discretion to avoid the implication that we
are checking on candidates.
August 7, 1972.
Re Bu r/s January 13, 1972: Coming elections.
By r/s of 1-13-72 you were requested to furnish pertinent background informa-
tion from public sources as well as data from your files regarding nonincumbent
candidates for Congress. It has now been over a month since the primary in your
state was held, and we have not received the requested information. Please
submit this information within three weeks from the date of this r/s. Make no
outside inquiries such as checks of credit bureaus or newspaper morgues concern-
ing this matter.
September 13, 1972.
Re Coming elections.
Attached is a copy of the routing slip sent your office regarding nonincumbent
candidates. Information has not been received from 5"our office although it is
noted the primary in your state has been held. Please submit the necessary
information to reach Crime Records Division by 10-1-72.
September 19, 1972.
Re Coming elections.
Attached is a copy of the routing slip sent your office regarding nonincumbent
candidates. It is noted the primary in your state has been held. Please submit the
necessary information to reach Crime Records Division by 10-9-72.
August 12, 1970.
Re National Elections Crime Research Section.
Primary elections have been or are being conducted in each State to choose
candidates for the forthcoming November elections for all House members and
for certain Senators and Governors.
You are requested to furnish background data and any information in your
files re major nonincumbent candidates for Senate, House and/or Governor in
those districts covered by j'our office. This matter should, of course, be handled
extremel.y discreetly and the information should be submitted to the Bureau on
a strictly informal basis as soon as the pertinent data is available.
October 6, 1970.
Re National Elections Crime Research Section, re my routing slip Aug. 12, 1970.
Inasmuch as all primary elections have now been held, it is requested that you
expedite transmittal of background data and any information in your files regard-
ing major nonincumbent candidates for Senate, House and/or Governor in those
districts covered bj^ your Office. Bear in m-ind that this matter should, of course,
be handled extremely discreetly and that the information should be submitted to
the Bureau on a strictly informal basis as soon as possible.
39
Memo
January 12, 1973.
Re Information for Campaign Trips : Events and Issues.
Under date of September 1, 1972, Geoff Shepard of the White House staff,
prepared a memorandum for the Deputy Attorney General on the subject of
"Information for Campaign Trips: Events and Issues." This requested two
categories of information: (1) identification of the substantive issue problem areas
in the criminal justice field; and (2) a list of events relating to the criminal justice
area that would be good for John Ehrlichman to consider doing. The memo-
randum indicated an interest in this information in 15 specified states. It requested
the information by close of business on September 7, 1972.
Under date of September 8, 1972, the Deputy Attorney General forwarded to
Acting FBI Director L. Patrick Gray, III, a copy of the White House memo-
randum requesting an evaluation of the questions. This noted that the White
House deadline already was passed and asked for a response as quickly as possible.
(A copy of this memorandum and a copy of the White House memorandum are
attached.)
The memorandum from the Deputy Attorney General was received in the
oflfice of the Acting Director of the FBI at 10:32 a.m., on September 8, 1972.
Mr. Gray was out of Washington at the time and the matter was handled by
his Executive Assistant, David D. Kinley. He forwarded it to the Assistant
Director of the Crime Research Division, Thomas E. Bishop. Mr. Bishop dis-
cussed the matter with Acting Associate Director W. Mark Felt, and thereafter
Mr. Bishop had one of his subordinates prepare a teletype to 21 FBI Field Offices
which he approved to be sent late on September 8, 1972, setting a deadline of the
opening of business on September 11, 1972. This teletype set out virtually verbatim
the text of the request in the White House memorandum of September 1, 1972.
The material received from the Field Offices in response to the teletype was
summarized into a memorandum on September 11, 1972, which was approved by
Messrs Bishop, Felt and Kinley and was then delivered to the office of the Deputy
Attorney General late on the same date. The information supphed by the Field
Offices required no investigation to obtain it — it was information readily available
within the Field Offices pertaining to forthcoming meetings and conferences
on matters of similar interest in law enforcement and criminal justice fields.
Mr. Gray was out of Washington during the entire period of September 8 to
11, 1972, returning to the city after 7 p.m., on September 11, 1972. His first
knowledge of this matter was on the late afternoon of September 12, 1972.
Personnel involved in the handling of this project have stated they did not
question the propriety in complying with the request since it dealt with information
of a broad nature concerning police and the criminal justice system, since it had
been requested by the White House, and since the request had come through the
offices of the Deputy Attorney General and the Acting Director.
U.S. Government,
September 8, 1972.
To: L. Patrick Gray, Director, FBI.
From: Ralph E. Erickson, Deputy Attornej' General.
Subject: Information for Campaign Trips: Events and Issues (Attached. White
House Memorandum.)
Would you undertake to evaluate the questions asked of us by Jolm Ehrlichman
in the attached memorandum and give me the benefit of your response.
Although we are beyond the due date of this memorandum already, jDlease make
your response as quickly as possible.
The White House,
Washington, September 1, 1972.
Memorandum for: The Deputy Attorney General.
Subject: Information for campaign trips: Events and issues.
In order for John Ehrlichman to give the President maximum support during
campaign trips over the next several weeks, the following information is required
for each of the states listed at Tab A.
(1) Identification of the substantive issue problem areas in the criminal justice
field for that particular state. Please limit yourself to problems of sufficient
magnitude that the President or John Ehrlichman might be expected to be aware
of them. Brevitj^ is the key, and often all that is necessary is to flag a sensitive
problem so it can be avoided or more extensive preparation can be undertaken
should we choose to speak about it.
40
(2) A list of events relating to the criminal justice area that would be good for
John Ehrlichman to consider doing. For each suggested event, the following items
should be indicated:
(A) Purpose of the event.
(B) The nature of the group or institution involved.
(C) The content of the event.
(D) Names of specific people who can be contacted for the purpose of setting it
up (together with titles, addresses, telephone numbers, etc.).
(E) All trade-off factors to be considered in scheduling the event.
I am receiving separate materials from both LEAA and DALE, so you should
omit any consideration of problems in the area of Federal aid or drugs. I would
expect your hst of problems to be fairly brief, but there are certainly criminal
justice problems (such as the Fort Worth Five) that we should flag for the
President.
I know this is rushing you, but I need the information by close of business,
Thursday, September 7, 1972.
Thanks, Ralph.
Geoff Shepard.
California (San Francisco and Los Angeles) .
Connecticut.
Florida.
Georgia (Atlanta).
Illinois (Chicago).
Massachusetts.
Michigan.
Missouri (Kansas City).
New Jersey.
New York City.
Ohio.
Pennsylvania (Philadelphia and Pittsburgh).
South Dakota.
Tennessee.
Texas (San Antonio).
Mr. Gray. I first learned of the program to collect biographical
information on congressional candidates on October 26, 1972, when
we learned at FBI Headquarters that an agent in Elyria, Ohio,
contrary to specific instructions, had contacted a newspaper in that
area requesting information on a candidate. I promptly obtained the
complete facts concerning this program and immediately ordered
that it be discontinued. A press release concerning this matter was
made the following day, October 27, 1972, and this is included with
the material enclosed \\ith my letter to you. Senator Ervin, of January
12, 1973, which has been submitted for the record.
Concerning the request sent to 21 FBI field offices in September
1972, seeking information of possible interest to the White House in
the law enforcement and criminal justice field, also discussed in my
letter to you of January 12, 1973, Senator, I first learned of that in
a staff meeting. I believe it was 5 o'clock on Tuesday, I would have to
remember the date that I set it forth, I have the letter to you, Senator,
and I can get it from there rather than picking a wTong date.
The important point I think
Senator Ervin. I believe 3^ou wrote the letter on January 12, 1973.
Mr. Gray. Yes, but when I learned of it was the Tuesday following
my return from a week long trip. I had gone the preceding week to
Butte and Anchorage, was out on travel all that week. I want to be
very sure about these answers, that is why I want to take the time. I
have got the information here and just need to refresh my recollection.
41
I went on a trip to Anchorage, Alaska, to visit the field office there,
to visit the Seattle field office, the Portland field office, speak in
Spokane, Wash., to the Washington State Bar Association, visit the
field office at Butte, Mont., and the dates of all those were around the
11th, I think, of September, and I will pin it down here. Yes, and I
came back, it was on the 12th of September in a meeting with my
personal staff in the afternoon that I learned about this. This was the
first indication that I had of it.
Senator Ervin. I think it might be helpful to the committee if you
could indicate in an extremely brief fashion the nature of the informa-
tion in the dossiers, or whatever you chose to call them, relating to
Congressmen and candidates for Congress which had been collected by
the FBI vmder this practice.
Mr. Gray. Right. The idea was started, conceived in 1950, was
pursued actively from 1954 on, and the idea was generated by those
who were then in charge of meeting with Members of Congress and
handling requests from Members of Congress and providing informa-
tion to Alembers of Congress.
The concept of the operation was to go into a district, acquire the
names of the individuals who were candidates, and acquire public
source information regarding those individuals as well as any informa-
tion in the files of the FBI at the division level, regarding any contacts
that these individuals might have had with the FBI — to bundle all
this public source material together, send it back to FBI headquarters
where it was distilled and a summary memorandum prepared if th^
individual was elected. No summary memorandum was prepared if the
individual was not elected, and all public source material acquired was
destroyed. So that all 3'ou had, if you had an incumbent, or rather a
candidate running in a given district, we would gather that material
on him. Then if this candidate was elected, public source material on
him would be distilled into a summary memorandum and that would
be sheet No. 1 or sheets No. 1 through however long the memorandum
was regarding this individual. Our people who were in what was then
called the Crime Records Division would utilize that in making
their contacts with, the Members.
Senator Ervin. What was done with the data that was related to
the candidates who lost?
Mr. Gray. They were destroyed, Senator.
Senator Ervin. Destroyed.
Did the summary which was made from these files indicate whether
there had been investigations into the personal conduct or the political
views of the candidates or Members?
Mr. Gray. No. The only information we had was the public source
information that we acquired or any information that we might have
on the indi\4dual that was contained in the FBI files at the division
level or at the headquarters level. Now, if that individual as a private
citizen had been the subject of a FBI investigation; yes, sir, that would
be contained in the summary memorandum.
Senator Ervin. But, if he had not been the subject of a prior
investigation it would not be?
Mr. Gray. No, sir, and we did not conduct any investigation of
these individuals who were candidates in a given district.
Senator Ervin. Now, of course, this practice had originated long
before you became Director?
42
Mr. Gray. Yes, sir, that is correct, Senator.
Senator Ervin. And your investigation of the history of the practice
satisfied you that this information was gathered for the benefit of
those FBI employees who may have a reason to contact these Con-
gressmen for the FBI in the dealings between Congress and the FBI.
Mr. Gray. Yes, sir. Right here at the national level men like
Inspector Dave Bowers, who conduct this kind of relationship with
the Congress, who really — really it is a congressional services unit
and that is what I have changed it to in the reorganization. Those men
are doing that now and are in what we call today the congressional
services unit.
Senator Ervin. As I understand from your letter and other public
statements made by you, tliis practice has been discontinued and the
FBI relies upon such tilings as the "Congressional Quarterly" and
other public information for any information of this character?
Mr. Gray. Right. I shut it down over the recommendations of the
people in the Bureau that it be continued and I said absolutely not, it
will not be continued. It is too readily subject to misinterpretation
and we don't need it.
Senator Ervin. As you know, the Senate has imposed upon me
and other members of the Senate Select Committee on Presidential
Campaign Activities a very solemn and serious responsibility in con-
nection with the so-called Watergate affair and various ramifications
connected with it. I would have been happy if I could have asked
you some of these questions 1 am now going to ask you after that
committee has discharged those responsibilities. However, in view of
the fact that your nomination has been submitted now, I am compelled
in the nature of things to ask you these questions.
Mr. Gray. Senator Ervin, I understand that. I would hope, of
course, we would not get into the Watergate substantively, but I can
readily see that the members of this committee have got to be assured
that I went at this with the FBI's standard procedure, with its accus-
tomed vigor, and I will do my very best to respond to any of your
questions. I have absolutely nothing to hold back in connection
with that and if we are going to take two bites of that apple why so
be it, let's get on with it.
Senator Ervin. I have received by telephone the assurance of
the Attorney General that he and the Department of Justice will
cooperate with the committee in the effort of the committee to investi-
gate these matters. I take it from your statement a moment ago that
you are also prepared to cooperate with the committee.
Mr. Gray. Absolutely, sir. Our raw data, our memoranda, what-
ever jthis committee wants, whatever the Ervin Select Committee
wants, is available to the members.
Senator Ervin. I am frank to state that I am just a little bit
troubled by the limitation that you announced, that only members of
the committee, that is only Senators, shall be allowed to inspect these
raw fdes, because I have got 10.000 other jobs besides that of investi-
gating Watergate and I think that is true of all the other members of
the committee.
Mr. Gray. I understand that, Senator.
Senator Ervin. The Senate resolution authorizing and requiring
this investigation specifies that the only people who can have access
43
to these files would be either the members of the committee or the
chief counsel to the committee or the counsel for the minority or other
members of the staff of the committee who might be designated by
the chairman and the ranking minority member of the committee.
Mr. Gray. You are talkmg about your Er\dn Select Committee?
Senator Ervin. Yes,
Mr. Gray. I have no quarrel with that. We will comply with the
resolution of the Senate. But I am talldng about the procedure now,
because Senators here who are members of this committee ob^dously
are going to want to know how Gray handled the Watergate before
the}'^ are going to confirm this bloke for my position and I am prepared
to tell you.
Senator Ervin. In other words, I would think that the minority
ranking member, who is now elected vice chairman of the committee,
Senator Baker of Tennessee, would not want anybody but the m.ost
reputable person to look at the files but we would like to have a
member of the staff selected by both of us to do this work instead of
doing it in person. ; ,
Mr. Gray. Senator, as far as your committee is concerned, we in
the FBI will abide by the joint resolution, I have some people I have
to take some orders from, too. On the one hand, there were some who
criticized Mr. Hoover for being a feudal baron and now ma3^be it
seems I sense a little criticism of me because I am taking orders, but
I am trying to comply. I am saying to tliis committee that my posi-
tion has been from the beginning that we have nothing to hide and
I am going to state it on the public record because. I have stated it
on the private record. ■
Senator Ervin. Yes, that is the reason that I am concerned that
Senators not be the only ones who will have to do this work and so
I understand . •
Mr. Gray. I meant, Senator Ervin, for tliis committee I am willing
to send over the materials and I am willing to send, oyjer two agents
and a Senator can sit down with them and question them any way
they want.
V Senator Ervin. And I might state that as far as I am concerned
and as far as I can control the matter, it is not the purpose of the
committee to take and put any raw files or an^^tliing of that character
in evidence. We just don't want to have to put the taxpayers to the
expense of setting up a little FBI of our own to conduct investigations
which have been made by the FBI. We want to learn from the FBI
files A\'lio are witnesses , possessing some knowledge which is worthwhile
for the committee to hear.
Mr. Gray. Right, and we have analyses and all other kinds of
books and summaries and we will provide that to the Ervin Com-
mittee. We have no problem on that.
Senator Ervin. Mr. J. Edgar Hoover never had a more ardent
admirer in the United States than myself, and there is nobody in
the United States who has respected throughout the years the woi'k
of the FBI more than I have respected it. As a practicing attorney
and as a judge I had nitiny contacts with the FBI agents. I have been
impressed by the highest standard of conduct and tlie high character
Y%hich they possess.
Mr. Gray. Thank you. Senator Ervin.
44
Senator Ervin. I read somewhere in the press that the FBI had
interviewed hundreds of witnesses in connection Mith this Watergate
affair but that former Secretary Stans, instead of being interrogated
by the FBI, had been permitted to file with the FBI a statement
prepared by him or for him. Can you inform me as to that?
Mr. Gray. That is not correct. That may be confused with the
fact that a deposition was taken from him instead of his appearing
before the Federal grand jury. I believe I am correct on that, but
subject to checking my files and gi\ang you an accurate answer on
that, let that be what I think you are talking about. But we inter-
viewed Secretary Stans, and my recollection is that we interviewed
him four times, no, three times: on July 5, July 14, and July 28, 1972.
(Mr. Gray subsequently submitted the following statement :)
Upon checking the record I find that a deposition was taken from Secretar.y
Stans on August 2, 1972, by two assistant U.S. attorneys at the Department of
Justice in lieu of Federal grand jury testimony. In further checking, I find that
we interviewed Secretary Stans four times; one time on July 5, twice on Jul}' 14,
and one time on July 28, 1972.
Senator Ervin. Now the reason I asked that question is that I
know, as a lawyer, that you cannot crossexamine a statement. That
is the reason that the rumor or statement I read gave me some
concern.
There is one other thing I would like to ask. Did you ever know Mr,
Donald H. Segretti, a California lawyer? ' *""
Mr. Gray. Did I know him personally, sir?
Senator Ervin. Yes,
Mr. Gray. No, sir.
Senator Ervin. The Washington Post, on October 15, 1972, reported
that Lawrence Young, a California attorney, who I believe was a
college mate of Mr. Segretti, stated in a sworn statement that Mr.
Segretti told him, among other things, that on August 19 — well, I
will say before reading it that Mr. Young stated in an affidavit sup-
plied to the Washington Post that he and Mr. Segretti and Dwight
L. Chapin were college mates — I believe it was at Southern California,
I am not sure of the institution — and that Mr. Segretti told him that
he had been interviewed by the FBI on one or more occasions, that
he had been subpenaed as a witness to testify in the Watergate case,
and that on August 19, 1972, two days before the Republican National
Convention, that he, Mr. Segretti, went to Miami Beach, and that
while he was there a presidential aide showed him copies of two inter-
views he had with the FBI, including one that was not yet 24 hours
old.
Mr. Gray. I think we only interviewed Segretti once but I have to
check that. Let me just check this record here. I know we interviewed
him on the 26th of June and am just trying to see whether there was
another date on which we interviewed him.
My recollection, first, is that we only interviewed him on the 26th
of June. I don't know whether we interviewed him a second time. We
didn't look into that allegation at all as to whether or not he was
shown any FBI interview statements.
Senator Ervin. Then you can't give me any information on that
question;
Mr. Gray. I can give you information on it but I can't tell you
whether or not he was shown those statements — that is what I cannot
45,
tell you. To give you that information I am going to have to take time
to tell you how we progressed on this investigation.
Senator Ervin. Well, that wouldn't be a likely procedure to be per-
mitted bv the FBI, would it?
Mr. Gray. Of course not. We certainly would not.
Senator Ervin. So you, at the present time, can neither affirm nor
deny that statement;
Mr. Gray. No, I don't because I can't; I can't say with any degree
of certainty testifying under oath that he was or was not.
Senator Ervin. I take it that you give the committee your assurance
that if any such event happened, that is if any copy of the FBI inter-
view was given to Mr. Segretti it was not given by you or with your
knowledge or consent;
Mr. Gray. It was not done with my knowledge or consent, that is
true. But I can go into it further if you want me to explain how it
possibly could.
Senator Ervin. Yes, I would like to have that.
Mr. Gray. When we started out this investigation, it was the most
closelv held investigation that we have conducted in the FBI because
of the fact that we did not know who might become involved. Dis-
semination of information on this was very limited, at my explicit
order, and with the concurrence of the Attorney General of the United
States.
Now there was that contact between the case agents and the
Assistant U.S. Attorneys that traditionally occurs in an investigation.
There was contact also with the assistant attorney general of the crimi-
nal division, and in accordance with then standard FBI operating
procedures, on June 19 there was delivered to me a summary report of
what had transpired to date, facts and circumstances, in Watergate.
Coupled with that was a letterhead memorandum, as I recall it, and
I will introduce those documents for the record here, a letterhead
memorandum transmitting this information to the Attorney General,
and a letter prepared addressed to H.R. Haldeman. I said no, and I
stopped it right then and there. That was in accordance with then
standard FBI operating procedure. The material just came up, and I
said no.
Now, as time went on we finalh^ began delivering the investigative
reports to the assistant attorney general of the criminal division and
we have a listing of the da:tes on which we did that and I will
submit that for the record. Then, I think it was the middle of July,
about the 19th, I was asked by the White House, by John Dean, to
provide them with a letterhead memorandum because he wanted to
have what we had to date because the President specifically charged
him with looking into any involvement on the part of White House
staff members.
I asked m}^ legal counsel to prepare a memorandum regarding
whether or not we had a duty to send any material to the White
House. The answer came back: On our own initiative, no; in response
to a directive from an individual acting for the President of the
United States, that is another matter and we do.
So I had prepared, caused to be prepared, a letterhead memoran-
dum, dated Jul}^ 21, and we will submit that for the record, and that
was submitted to the Attorney General. I have every reason to believe
91-331 — 73 1
4.6
that that went over to Mr. Dean at the White House. I have no
reason to question that it should or should not, because I work for
the President of the United States and I think the President of the
United States is entitled to ask the Director of the Federal Bureau
of Investigation: "What information do you have that implicates
individuals who are members of my staff?" And I submitted it.
Later on, Mr. Dean asked to review the interview reports of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation, and I submitted those to him. So you
see the possibility here, Senator, and I think what is being driven at
in this, the allegation is really directed toward Mr. Dean having one of
these interview reports and showing it to Mr. Segretti down in Miami.
I can tell you this, that when this newspaper report hit I called John
Dean and I asked him if he had done this, and he said: "I did not.
I didn't even have those documents ^vith me."
Senator Ervin. Now, am I correct in inferring that it had been
the practice to supply information collected by the FBI, either in the
form of summaries or in the form of copies of interviews, to officials
of the Department of Justice or the district attorne3rs;
Mr. Gray. Our regular procedure, Senator Ervin, of course, is to
work very closely with the assistant U.S. attorneys and with U.S.
attorneys, and then at FBI headquarters levels to work ^vith the
Assistant Attorney General having cognizance of the case, and the
answer to your question is "Yes; we keep them informed." In this case
we were even tight with information there.
Senator Ervin. Let me see if 1 understand another thing you said.
Some information or a summary of some information collected by
the FBI in regard to some aspect of the Watergate matter, accom-
panied by a proposed letter, was to be sent to Mr. Haldeman? -~;''
J\lr. Gray. Yes, sir; that happened on June 19, and I will subiiiit
those documents for the record. I will show them exactly as they
.came up to me, and I said "No."
(Mr. Gray subsequently submitted the following documents:)
''"■■'. . . June 19, 1972.
To: The Attorney General from Acting Director, FBI.
Re James Walter McCord, Jr., and otliers, burglary of Democratic Party National
Headquarters, Washington, D.C. "'
Enclosed is a memorandum containing the results of investigation of the
burglary of the Democratic Party National Headquarters, Watergate Apart-
ments, Washington, D.C, on June'l7, 1972.
A copy of the memorandum has also been furnished to Honorable H. R. Halde-
man, Assistant to the President. Investigation concerning this matter is continu-
ing and reports of investigation will be furnished to the Criminal Division as
soon as thev are received.
U.S. Department of Justice,
Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Washington, D.C, June 19, 1972.
Hon. H. R. Haldeman,
Assistant to the President,
The White House,
Washington, D.C.
De;ar Mr. Haldeman: Enclosed is a memorandum containing the results of
investigation of the burglary of the Democratic Part}' National Headquarters,
Watergate Apartments, Washington, D.C, on June 17, 1972.
A copy of the memorandum has also been forwarded to the Attorney General
and investigation by the FBI is continuing.
Smcerely yours,
L. Patrick Gray, III,
Acting Director.
47-.
James Walter McCosd, Jr., and Others, Burglary of, Democratic Party
National Headquarters, Washington, D.C, June 17, 1972
interception of communications
At approximately 2:30 a.m., June 17, 1972, officers of the Washington, D.C,
Metropolitan Police Department (AIPD), acting on information received from the
security guard, Watergate Apartments, 2600 Virginia Avenue, N.W., Washington, .
D.C, that locks in the building had been tampered with, arrested five individuals
in the office of the Democratic Party National Headquarters. These individuals
have been identified as: James Walter McCord, Jr.; Bernard L. Barker; Frank.
Anthony Fiorini; Virgirlo R. Gonzales; and Eugenio Rolando Martinez y Ceaga.
These individuals had in their possession burglary tools and a quantity of eaves-
dropping and photographic equipment.
At the time of the arrests, it was observed that several ceiling panels had been
removed, as well as a telephone jack and an air conditioning cover, apparently
in preparation for concealment of the eavesdropping devices.
All subjects have been charged with burglary, in violation of Section 1801,
Title 22, District of Columbia Code, and all except McCord are being held in
lieu of $50,000 bond. McCord is being held in lieu of $30,000 bond. A preliminary
hearing is set for June 29, 1972. Ail subjects have declined to be interviewed
concerning this matter.
At the time of their arrests, the subjects were in possession of $2,400, including
thirteen new $100 bills. A search of rooms rented at the Watergate Hotel by
these individuals, pursuant to a search warrant authorized by Assistant U.S.
Attorney Charles Work, Washington, D.C, disclosed an additional $3,500 in
new $100 bills of the same series and originating serial numbers as those found at
the time of the arrests.
Investigation reveals the following information concerning the background
of the persons arrested:
James Walter McCord, Jr., of Rockville, Maryland, who at the time of his
arrest gave the name Edward Alartin, has been determined to have been emplo.yed
as an FBI Agent from October, 1948 to February, 1951; having been emploj^ed by
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) August, 1951 to August, 1970; and is presently
reported to be Chief of Security for the "Committee to Reelect Nixon," 1701
Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W., Washington, D.C. In addition, McCord, in February,
1<)72, was reportedly in charge of security for the family of former Attorney
General John N. Mitchell.
Bernard L. Barker, who is also known as Frank Carter, is reported to be a
Cuban national who is in the real estate business in Coral Gables, Florida. He is
indicated to have been of interest to the CIA in the past but is not of curreilt
interest. He is reported to be very active in anti-Castro groups in Florida.
Frank Anthony Fiorini, also known as Fred Frank Fiorini, Attila F. Sturgis,'
Anthony Sturgis and Edward Joseph Hamilton, was arrested on July 30, 1958,
for illegal possession of arms in Florida. Prosecution was declined concerning
that matter. Sources in the Miami area report he is a "soldier of fortune" and
allegedly was a gun runner to Cuba prior to the Castro regime. Sources in Miami
say he is now associated with organized crime activities, the details of which are
not available.
Virgirio R. Gonzales, also known as Raoul Godo.v, is a native of Guba, currentlj'-
residing in Miami, Florida. CIA records do not indicate Gonzales is known to
that agency; however, further check is being made in this regard.
Eugenio Pi,olando Martinez y Creaga, also known as Eugenio Rolando Martinez,
GeneValdes and Jean Yaldes, is a native of Cuba. He was arrested November 24,
1958, for violation of immigration laws in Miami, Florida, and was deported to
Havana, Cuba, on January 2, 1959. He reportedly arrived in the United States
by boat on June 18, 1938, from Cuba. Sources in Miami report Martinez is a
friend of Barker and is possibly in the real estate business with Barker. CIA
records do not indicate that Martinez is known to that agency; however, further
check is being made in this regard.
It is to be noted at the time of the search of the subjects' hotel rooms, a stamped
sealed envelope was located. This envelope contained a check drawn by E. Howard
Hunt in the amount of $6.39 and a bill from Lakewood Country Club, Rockville,
Maryland, to Hunt in care of Weybright & Talley, New York City. Runt has
been determined to be Everette Howard Hunt, Jr., who was employed by CIA
from November, 1949 to April, 1970, and on whom the FBI conducted a Special
Inquiry investigation in July, 1971, for a White House staff position. Mr. A. P.
48
Butterfield, Deputy Assistant to the President, advised that Hunt was used as-
a consultant by the White House on "highly sensitive, confidential matters"
about nine months ago. To Mr. Butterfield's knowledge, he has not been used
since. Hunt was interviewed, admitted the checic in question is his, but refused
to discuss this matter or the individuals involved without consulting his attorney.
It is noted that shortly after the subjects were arrested, a Washington, D.C.,
attorney, named Michael Douglas Caddy, appeared at the 2nd District, MPD,
stating he was representing the five subjects. It is known that when the subjects
were arrested, they refused the opportunity to make a telephone call and had
no way of contacting Mr. Caddy. He wa-s asked how he became aware of the
arrests but refused to furnish anj^ information stating he would recontact Assistant
U.S. Attorney Work in a few days after thinking the matter over. Subsequently,
he advised FBI Agents he received a call at 3:00 a.m., June 17, 1972, from a
person whose identity he would not reveal. It is noted that Caddy, during FBI
investigation of Hunt, was listed by Hunt as a personal reference and at that
time Caddy advised he had known Hunt for about two years.
Investigation of this matter is continuing by the FBI to determine whether
there is a violation of the Interception of Ccmimunications Statutes or any other
Federal statutes.
This document contains neither recommendations nor conclusions of the FBI.
It is the property of the FBI and is loaned to your agency; it and its contents are
not to be distributed outside your agency.
Investigative reports delivered to Assistant Attorney General Henry Petersen,
Criminal Division of the Department:
Number of
Date reports
June 30, 1972 13
Julv 3, 1972 13
Julv 7, 1972 10'
July 14, 1972J_ , 22
Julv 19, 1972 23
July 20, 1972 I
Aug. 1, 1972 24
Aug. 11, 1972 11
Aug. 25, 1972 9
Sept. 28, 1972 12
Oct. 13, 1972 6
Oct. 20, 1972 8
Dec. 6, 1972 18
Dec. 22, 1972 2
Jan. 11, 1973 7
Jan. 15, 1973 2
Jan. 26, 1973 1
Feb. 1, 1973 1
Feb. 9, 1973 1
Feb. 13, 1973___ I
Feb. 16, 1973 1
Total 18ft
U.S. Department of Justice,
Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Washington, D.C., July 21, 1972.
James Walter McCord, Jr.,
Burglary of the Democratic Party National Headquarters, Washington, D.C.
There follows a summary of pertinent investigation conducted of the captioned
matter through July 20, 1972:
Burglary and Arrest: At approximately 2:30 a.m., June 17, 1972, officers of the
Metropolitan PoUce Department (MPD) apprehended five individuals in an
executive conference room of the Democratic Party National Headquarters lo-
cated on the 6th floor of the Watergate Apartments, 2600 Virginia Avenue, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. At the time of arrest the subjects had in their possession
burglary tools, electronic and photographic equipment and were wearing surgical-
type plastic gloves.
49
Those arrested were identified as James Walter McCord, Jr., using the alias
Edward Warren; Bernard L. Barker, using the alias Frank Carter; Eugenio
Rolando Martinez y Creaga, using the alias Gene Valdes; Frank Anthony Sturgia,
also known as Frank Anthony Fiorini, using the aliases Joseph Di Alberto and
Edward Hamilton; and Virgirlo Gonzales, using the alias Raoul Godoy.
All subjects refused to be interviewed, refused to state for whom they were
working, from where they came or their purpose for being in the building. They
were all charged with Burglary, Section 1801, Title 22, District of Columbia
Code, and were held on $50,000 bond except for McCord, a Rockville, Maryland,
resident, whose bond was set at $30,000. AH but Sturgis have since been released
from District of Columbia Jail on bond.
McCord, who appears to have been the leader of this group, retired from the
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) on August 31, 1970, and at the time of his
arrest he was Chief of Security for the Committee to Reelect the President. The
remaining subjects are all known to have Cuban backgrounds and either worked
with or participated in CIA activities against the Castro Government.
Involvement of Everette Howard Hunt, Jr.: After the arrests of the subjects in
the Democratic Party National Headquarters, pursuant to an authorized search
warrant, a search was made of the rooms rented by the subjects, using aliases, at
the Watergate Hotel. Among the items located was an envelope containing a
check of E. Howard Hunt in the amount of $6.39 in payment for a bill from Lake-
wood Country Club, Rockville, Maryland, to Hunt in care of a publications firm
in New York City. Hunt, when contacted, admitted the check was his but refused
to discuss the matter before consulting his attorney. Also located in the subjects'
rooms were personal telephone directories which contained names, telephone
numbers and addresses of numerous persons in Miami, New York and Washington,
D.C. One of the names contained in the telephone book of subject Martinez is
"Hunt (W. House)," together with the telephone number of Hunt's office at the
White House.
Investigation developed that Hunt was employed by the CIA from November 8,
1949, to April 30, 1970, when he retired. On May 1, 1970, he became employed
by Robert R. Mullen Company, 1700 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington,
D.C, a public relations and fund raising organization. Beginning July 6, 1971,
Hunt was employed on a consultant basis by the White House staff, working
with Mr. David R. Young and Mr. Charles W. Colson. He is reported to have
been used as a consultant on declassification of the Pentagon Papers. His services
were last utilized in this capacity on March 29, 1972. Information was developed
that on the recommendation of a member of Mr. Colson's staff, Hunt was ter-
minated as a consultant effective April 1, 1972, and was to be hired immediately
thereafter by "1701" (1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., is the address of the
Committee to Reelect the President).
Investigation developed that between January 1, 1972, and June 20, 1972,
Hunt was in frequent and regular contact with the office and residence of Bernard
L. Barker, Miami, Florida. Investigation further developed that Hunt, frequently
utiHzing the alias Ed J. Hamilton, together with George Gordon Liddy, who
frequently used the alias George Leonard or G. Leonard, traveled extensively
around the United States contacting former CIA employees for the purpose of
setting up a security organization for the Republican Party dealing with "political
espionage."
Involvemeyit of Michael Douglas Caddy: Michael Douglas Caddy, also known as
Douglas Caddy, is an Attorney at Law having offices at 1250 Connecticut Avenue,
N.W., Washington, D.C, and is associated with the law firm Gall, Lane, Powell,
and Kilcullen. Caddy gratuitously appeared at the Metropolitan Police Depart-
ment where subjects were taken after being arrested and claimed to represent them.
Prior to Caddy's arrival, none of the subjects made any phone calls which might
have precipitated his appearance. Investigation disclosed telephone calls were
made during the early morning hours of June 17, 1972, from the telephone of
Everette Howard Hunt at the Robert R. Mullen and Company to the Barker
residence in Miami, Florida, and from Barker's residence to the residence of Caddy.
Upon Caddy's appearance before the Federal grand jury at Washington, D.C,
he was held in contempt of court for failing to answer questions on the basis he had
an attorney-client relationship with Hunt. Contempt action was upheld by the
U.S. Court of Appeals on July 19, 1972. Caddy subsequently testified he received a
telephone call from Hunt at around 3:00 a.m., on June 17, 1972.
Involvement of George Gordon Liddy: As is set forth elsewhere in this memoran-
dum, Everette Howard Hunt traveled extensively endeavoring to recruit former
CIA employees for security work for the Republican Party in late 1971 and early
50
1972. Investigation has developed that Liddy accompanied Hunt on a number of
these trips. Liddy, a former FBI Agent, was employed from April, 1969, to July,
1971, by the U.S. Treasury Department in the office of Law Enforcement. When
he resigned from the Treasury Department, Liddy accepted a position on the
White House staff and in December, 1971, resigned therefrom to work for the Com-
mittee for the Reelection of the President.
The telephone notebook of Martinez which was recovered when the rooms of
the subjects were searched at the Watergate Hotel contained a notation " George"
with the telephone number of 202-333-6575. The telephone notebook of
Bernard L. Barker, located in the above mentioned search, contained a notation
"George" with the telephone number WDC 333-0362. Investigation developed
that both of these numbers were at the office of the Committee for the Reelection
of the President, 1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.
It is noted that Mr. Maurice Stans, Chairman of the Finance Committee for
the Committee to Reelect the President, advised that the $25,000 cashier's check
, payable to Kenneth H. Dahlberg, dated April 10, 1972, was turned over to
Liddy, counsel for the Finance Committee, for a legal opinion as to how it would
be best to handle the receipt and recording of this check as the funds allegedly
had been contributed prior to April 7, 1972, although the check was dated April
10, 1972, after the effective date of new disclosure and reporting law. The check
was cashed by subject Bernard L. Barker at his bank in Miami, Florida, but Mr.
Stans had no idea how Barker obtained the check. (See write-up elsewhere in
this memorandum concerning the tracing of funds and the write-up concerning the
Howard Johnson Motel wherein it is shown that Liddy was observed giving a
large sum of money in cash to subject McCord.) Liddy is reported to have been
discharged by the Committee to Reelect the President because Liddy declined to
be interviewed by FBI Agents concerning this case.
Howard Johnson Motel Lookout: Investigation developed that James Walter
McCord, Jr., rented Room 419 at the Howard Johnson Motel, 2601 Virginia
Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C, from May 5, 1972, to May 28, 1972, and
Room 723 from May 29, 1972, until June 17, 1972. Room 723 was found vacant
by m-otel employees the evening of June 17, 1972. This motel is located directly
across the street from the Watergate Apartments and Room 723 faces the suite
occupied by the Democratic Party National Headquarters at the Watergate
Apartments.
Alfred Carleton Baldwin, III, a former FBI Agent, has been identified as the
individual who occupied Rooms 419 and 723 from about May 11, 1972, to June 17,
; 1972. Baldwin advised that during a period of this time he monitored, through the
use of electronic equipment set up by McCord, telephone conversations of Spencer
Oliver, a Democratic Party official. McCord told Baldwin that four extensions of
Oliver's telephone located "at the Democratic Party National Headquarters, were
being monitored.
Baldwin stated that while he was occupying Room 723 on one occasion, the
specific date which he cannot determine, George Gordon Liddy and Everette
Howard Hunt came to the room and had a conversation with McCord. On this
occasion Liddy took an envelope from his suit jacket and counted out about
$16,000 to $18,000 in $100 bUls, which he gave to McCord. McCord pocketed the
money and all three individuals left the room.
On the evening of June 16, 1972, McCord came to Room 723 and requested
Baldwin to purchase six batteries and some "speaker wire." Baldwin obtained the
batteries but did not buy the wire and McCord subsequently departed to locate
some wire. He returned about 11:00 p.m. to 11:30 p.m., carrying the wire and
various other electronic components appearing to have come from Lafayette
Radio.
About 12:00 a.m. to 12:30 a.m., June 17, 1972, McCord received a telephone call
and told Baldwin that "we're going across the street," pointing to the Democratic
Headquarters. McCord told Baldwin to watch and if anything unusual occurred
to contact McCord by walkie-talkie.
About 2:15 a.m., June 17, 1972, Baldwin noticed lights going on in the Water-
gate Apartments and subsequently police beginning to arrive. He attempted to
utilize the walkie-talkie to alert McCord and received a response in a whisper,
"We hear j^ou, they got us." About this time Baldwin noticed two men leaving the
alley on the east side of the Watergate and identified them as Hunt and Liddy.
Hunt came to Room 723 and used the phone to contact an attorney. Hunt told
Baldwin to telephone Mrs. McCord and advise her that her husband had been
arrested. He also told Baldwin to pack up the electronic gear and deliver it to
Mrs. McCord in McCord's panel truck which was parked in the basement of the
51
Howard Johnson Motel. He further told Baldwin to pack up his own belongings
and go home. Baldwin delivered the electronic equipment together with McCord's
wallet which had been left in the room to Mrs. McCord at about 4:00 a.m., June 17,
1972. She drove him back to his own car and he thereupon drove to his home
in Connecticut.
Travel Miami— Washington, D.C.: Travel June 16, 1972.
Investigation at Tamiami Tours, Miami, Florida, identified subjects Bernard L.
Barker and Eugenio R. Martinez as individuals who on June 12, 1972, purchased
four round trip tickets from Miami to Washington, D.C., on Eastern Airlines
flight 190 for June 16, 1972. These tickets, which were found on the subjects at
the time of their arrest, were purchased in the names of G. Valdes (alias of subject
Eugenio Martinez), F. Carter (ahas of subject Bernard L. Barker), J. Di Alberto
(alias of subject Frank Fiorini). and R. Godoy (alias of subject Virgirlo Gonzales).
At time of their arrest June 17, 1972, the subjects, except for McCord were
determined to be registered at the Watergate Hotel, Washington, D.C., under the
aliases shown on the foregoing airline tickets.
Travel May 22-30, 1972. Subject Eugenio Martinez has been identified as the
individual who on May 17, 1972, bought six one-way tickets at Tamiami Tours
for travel from Miami to Washington, D.C., on National Airlines flight 100 de-
parting May 22, 1972. These tickets were purchased by Martinez in the names of
Frank Carter (alias of Barker), J. Granada (believed to be Reinaldo Pico, pres-
ently in South America on business), Joseph Di Albert! (alias of Fiorini), Raoul
Godoy (alias of Gonzales), Jose Piedra (alias of Felipe De Diego) and G. Valdes
(alias of Martinez).
Investigation has determined that the foregoing individuals under the aliases
shown were registered at the Hamilton Hotel, Washington, D.C., from May 22,.
1972, to May 26, 1972, at which time they moved to the Watergate Hotel, Wash-
ington, D.C., where they stayed until May 30, 1972.
Investigation further discloses these individuals were joined at the Watergate
Hotel by two additional persons using the names of George Leonard (beUeved to
be George Gordon Liddy) from Kansas City, Kansas, and Edward Warren
(believed to be Everctte Howard Hunt) from New York City. V/arren paid the
Watergate Hotel bill for these individuals, totaling a little over $1,000 in cash.
Felipe De Diego, an employee of Barker's real estate firm, has been interviewed
and admits being -Rath the subjects during the period May 22-30, 1972, in Wash-
ington, D.C, According to De Diego, he was requested by Barker to make this
trip but he does not know the purpose of the trip and during his stay in Washing-
ton, D.C, the group appeared to be waiting to hear from some unidentified
individual.
It is noted that on May 28, 1972, there was a reported break-in of the Demo-
cratic Party National Headquarters, Watergate Apartments, Washington, D.C.
In addition to the foregoing the Security Guard at the Watergate Apartments
reported that sometime over the Memorial Day week end (he cannot pin this
down any closer) papers were found stuffed in the doorway of the 6th floor stair-
well in an apparent attempt to keep the door from working. Democratic Party
National Headquarters is located on the 6th floor of the Watergate Apartments.
Tracing of Funds; There follows a summary of investigation to trace funds that
may have been used to finance the operation involving the burgarj- of the
Democratic National Headquarters on June 17, 1972.
Bank Account of Bernard L. Barker; Barker as Barker Associates, a real estate
firm, maintains an account at the Republic National Bank of Miami. A review
of the records of this account shows that on April 21, 1972, Barker presented a
cashier's check dated April 10, 1972, payable to Kenneth Dahlberg, drawn on the
First Bank and Trust Company of Boca Raton, Florida, and endorsed by Dahl-
berg. Upon checking with the latter bank and determining that the cashier's check
was "as good as gold" Barker was given $25,000 in cash by the Republic National
Bank.
Barker on April 21, 1972, also presented to the Republic National Bank four
checks dated April 4, 1972, totaling $89,000, drawn on the Banco Internacional,
Mexico City, payable to Manuel Ogarrio and endorsed by Ogarrio. Since these
checks were payable to a third party, Barker was told he would have to deposit
these checks and wait for them to clear before he could receive any money for them.
On May 8, 1972, Barker was given $89,000 in cash by the Republic National Bank
for the foregoing checks.
Bernard L. Barker at the time of his release on $40,000 bond on July 14, 1972,
said he received the four checks totaling $89,000 from two men and turned the
money over to them. He took the 5th Amendment when asked to identify these
individuals.
52
Kenneth DahJberg — $25,000 Cashier's Check: Kenneth Dahlberg is a prominent
industrialist and Regional Chairman of the Finance Committee to Reelect the
President, who lives in Minneapolis and winters in Boca Raton, Florida. After
several refusals to be ' interviewed, Dahlberg on- July 6, 1972, consented to be
interviewed regarding the foregoing $2o,00U cashier's check cashed by subject
Barker. Dahlberg stated this check represented cash contributions he had ob-
tained while in Boca Raton and he furnished this check to Maurice H. Stans,
Chairman, Finance Committee to Reelect the President on April 11, 1972, in
Washington, D.C. According to Dahlberg he has no knowledge of what happened
to this check after he surrendered it to Stans. Dahlberg stated he was not ac-
quainted with subject Barker or any of the other subjects involved in this matter.
It is to be noted that during the period June 23, 1972, to June 26, 1972, when we
were endeavoring to interview Dahlberg concerning this check, he made three
telephone calls to Washington, D.C, to the Committee to Reelect the President.
$89,000 Banco Internacional Checks: On July 10, 1972, Manuel Ogarrio, an
attorney, Mexico City, advised that he purchased the four foregoing bank drafts
totaling $89,000, drawn on the Banco Internacional as a favor to an American
client of twenty years standing whom he refused to identify other than as a re-
liable American company with operations in Mexico. According to Ogarrio his
client gave him a check for $100,000 which he negotiated into the foregoing four
bank drafts and cash. He signed the checks making them negotiable and turned
them and the remaining $11,000 cash over to his client. He received no com-
mission for doing this and has no knowledge as to how Barker came into posses-
sion of these checks. According to Ogarrio he believed the purpose of the trans-
action was to convey money to the Repubhcan Party anonymously. On July 11,
1972, Ogarrio in a reinterview stated that he learned on July 10, 1972, that the
foregoing endorsed bank drafts were forwarded to Maurice Stans of the Republi-
can Party.
Bank Accounts of James Walter McCord: McCord maintains a personal checking
account and a business account in the name of McCord Associates at the Maryland
National Bank, College Park, Maryland. The records of these accounts show he
made a $10,000 cash deposit to his personal account on April 12, 1972; a $10,000
cash deposit to his business account on May 31, 1972; and a $10,000 cash deposit
to his business accovmt on June 12, 1972.
In addition, McCord on behalf of the Committee to Reelect the President on
February 22, 1972, opened an account in the name of Dedicated Friends of a
Better America, with McCord as Chairman, at the National Savings and Trust
Company, Washington, D.C. This account was closed April 17, 1972, and during
the period it was opened over $90,000 passed through this account.
Interview with Maurice Stans: Maurice Stans, Chairman, Finance Committee
toReelect the President, was interviewed July 14, 1972, at which time he advised
that a $25,000 cashier's check was given to him by Kenneth Dahlberg in Wash-
ington, D.C, on April 11, 1972. Stans in turn gave this check to Hugh Walter
Sloan, Jr., who at the time was responsible for the supervision of funds received by
the Finance Committee. According to Stans, Sloan then gave this check to George
Gordon Liddy who was acting as legal counsel to the Finance Committee for a
determination as to how this check should be handled since it was dated April 10,
1972, but the funds which it represented had been contributed prior to April 7,
1972, the effective date of the new Federal Disclosure Act. Sloan subsequently
advised Stans the money from the check had been received by the Committee.
Stans could furnish no explanation as to how Barker came to be in possession of
Dahlberg's $2.5,000 cashier's check.
Stans advised that on April 6, 1972, he learned from Sloan that the Committee
to Reelect the President had received $100,000 in the form of bank drafts on
Mexican banks. Stans, when informed the Mexican drafts totaled $89,000 replied
that Sloan had told him $100,000 in Mexican bank drafts had been received and
this is all he knew about the matter. Stans could offer no explanation as to how
these bank drafts came into Barker's possession nor was he aware of the iden-
tity of the American firm which allegedly made this contribution.
When Stans was requested to make Sloan available for immediate interview,
he advised that Sloan had resigned two weeks ago. Sloan was subsequently con-
tacted on July 17, 1972, and he declined to be interviewed until he had a chance
to discuss this matter with his attorney.
Interviews at the White House: Everette Howard Hunt and George Gordon Liddy
were known to have been employed at the White House as consultants and \yhite
House telephone numbers used by these individuals were found in subjects'
possession. Accordingly, various White House staff members acquainted with
Hunt and Liddy during their White House assignment were interviewed.
53
At the request of Mr. John W. Dean, Legal Counsel to the President, he, Dean,
sat in on all interviews conducted with White House personnel. Those interviewed
included Charles W. Colson, David R. Young, Alfred Wong, Bruce Kehrli, Fred
Fielding and Kathleen Chnow. All stated they were unable to furnish any infor-
mation concerning Hunt's or Liddy's involvement in these matters involving the
burgulary of the Democratic National Committee Headquarters.
According to Mr. David R. Young, both Hunt and Liddy worked for him on a
project to classify and declassify Government documents.
It was determined from Mr. John Dean that the personal effects of Everette
Howard Hunt had been removed on June 20, 1972, from Hunt's office in the
Executive Office Building and brought to his. Dean's, office. This material which
was turned over to the FBI on June 27, 1972, included ancillarj^ equipment for
the transceivers and other equipment identical to items known to have been
purchased by James Walter McCord, Jr. [The June 27 date was subsequently
changed to June 26.]
Interviews at Committee to Reelect the President: Numerous interviews were conducted
with personnel employed at the Committee to Reelect the President and in each
interview at the Committee's insistence an attorney of the Committee was present.
Several persons subsequent to interviews conducted at the Committee contacted
the FBI Washington Field Office and requested to be further interviewed away
from Committee headquarters and without the knowledge of Committee officials.
These persons advised that the presence of the attornej' during the interview
prevented them from being completely candid. These sources further advised
that all Committee people subpoenaed before the Federal Grand Jury were
subsequently debriefed by Committee attorneys as to what occurred at the
Federal Grand Jury hearing.
One of the foregoing persons confidentialh^ advised that Hugh Walter Sloan,
Jr., who supervises Committee finances reportedly maintains a brief case full of
money in his office safe. During the period February — April, 1972, according to
this source Sloan allegedly disbursed large sums to various Committee officials
for unknown reasons such as $50,000 to Jeb Magruder, $100,000 to Herbert L.
Porter and $89,000 to George Gordon Liddy.
Another cooperative source at the Committee advised confidentially that Com-
mittee officials during interviews were sending FBI Agents on fishing expeditions
to keep them from getting to the truth. This source advised that Mrs. McCord
following her husband's arrest on June 17, 1972, told Committee official Robert
Odle words to the effect "Well, it looks like your project failed." This source
identified Odle as one of the individuals who was less than candid in his interview
with FBI Agents.
Photographs of Democratic Party Correspondence: On June 22, 1972, Michael
Richardson, Rich Photos, 1600 W. Flagler Street, Miami, Florida, advised that
about noon, Saturday, June 10, 1972, one white male who he tentatively identi-
fied from a photograph as Bernard Barker, came to this store which is located in
a heavily populated Cuban area. This individual presented two rolls of exposed
Kodak tri-X black and white 35 millimeter film on which he said documents had
been photographed. He requested immediate development and printing of 8 by 10
prints. Richardson did a rush job and determined there were four exposed docu-
ment negatives on one roll and 34 document negatives on the other roll for a total of
38 exposed negatives. Richardson made one 7 by 10 print of each of the 38 neg-
atives.
Richardson said most of the documents had an emblem and were headed
"Chairman Democratic National Committee." The documents photographed
appeared to have been on onion skin paper and most were typed. A few consisted
of handwritten notes. On at least one of the documents, there was the signature
"Dick." Several letters had the handwritten name of Lawrence O'Brien. One or
more of the documents concerned a resume of an unrecalled woman who headed
a local campaign for Senator Hubert Humphrey. Richardson said all documents
were photographed with a shag carpet background and hands covered with
clear-type gloves held down each corner of each document.
Richardson made no written record of the transactions and maintained no
copy of the negatives or prints. Richardson tentatively identified one of the two
men who accompanied Barker as being Fiorini, but was unable to identify the
third man.
Investigation at the Howard Johnson Motel, 2601 Virginia Avenue, N.W.,
Washington, D.C., determined the carpet utilized by the motel is similar to that
noticed in the photographs by Richardson.
Direction of Investigation: Investigation is being directed to developing evidence
of an Interception of Communications violation against not only the subjects, but
54
all those who may have assisted them such as who recruited them, who financed
the operation, who planned the operation, etc. Section 2511, Title 18, U.S. Code,
makes it a violation for anj-one to willfully intercept, endeavor to intercept or
procure any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept any wire or oral
communication. It is also a violation of that Section for anyone to willfuUj- use,
endeavor to use or procure any other person to use or endeavor to use any elec-
tronic, mechanical or other device to intercept any oral communication. The
possession of anj^ electronic, mechanical or other device whicli is primarily useful
for surreptitious interception of wire or oral communications is a violation of
Section 2512, Title 18, U.S. Code, provided the device or any component thereof
has been sent through the mail or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.
Section 371, Title 18, U.S. Code, the general Conspiracj'' Statute, makes it an
offense if two or more persons conspire to commit anj^ offense against the United
States.
Senator Ervin. In other words, so far as you know that proposed
letter never was sent?
Mr. Gray. I know it was not sent.
Senator Ervin. I have seen statements in the press to the effect
that the Attorney General stated in substance that such investiga-
tion as was made in respect to the action of Mr. Segretti did not indi-
cate the commission of a crime on his part and for that reason the
investigation into his activities was not as complete as it was with
respect to the other aspects of the Watergate.
Mr. Gray. I wouldn't sa}^ that because the aspects of the investiga-
tion of Segretti with regard to any participation in a crime against the
United States was as thorough and as complete as any other. But we
were dealing with a crime and we were not dealing with political activ-
ity and we did not investigate into the political activity of Segretti,
but we did investigate into his involvement with violations of law with
regard to the intercepted communications statute.
Senator Ervin. Thank you very much.
I want to say, Mr. Gra}^, you made a very moving and very elo-
quent statement.
Mr. Gray. Senator Ervin, I appreciate your comment.
The Chairman, Senator Hruska?
Senator Hruska. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gray, I want to welcome you to the committee.
Mr. Chairman, this nominee is no stranger either to the committee
or to any of its individual members. For a little over 2 years now we
have had the benefit of his judgment and his counsel incident to the
several high Government positions he has occupied.
Mr. Chaimian, I believe that Pat Gray has the personal attributes
and the experience that will, in ni}^ judgment, make him a very fine
Director of the FBI. I say that not only on the basis of the personal
and official association that we have maintained over the past 2 years
but also upon the basis of an examination of the record which has been
made available to us. This includes the portfolio of speeches, some 35
in number, which I have carefully read and his replies to the question-
naire submitted to him by the Department of Justice at an earlier time
when he was being considered for nomination as a circuit judge.
With regard to the questionnaire, I want to say that i not only
read it — I studied it. It is a very profound document in that it goes
into considerable detail with respect to Mr. Gray's private legal ex-
perience as well as his experience with the Government. It details
the litigation in which he was engaged — in most instances as sole
counsel. It is an admirable record, accompanied by a superb personal
statement.
55
It is on this basis of the record and our long association, that I have
reached the conclusion that I ^vill support the nomination of Mr, Gray
for Director of the FBI.
He has been serving since May of 1972 as Acting Director of the
Bureau. Since that time, he has been the object of some criticism and
complaint. It is, of course, the committee's duty to consider these
changes further during the course of these hearings.
However, it will take a clear preponderance of the evidence, to
charge my present judgment on the nominee's qualifications.
Anj^one appearing before this committee is entitled to a fair and
forthright hearing, and I know^, Mr. Chairman, that under 3'Our
leadership, that is exactly the t3^pe of hearing we shall have here.
Upon the basis of these hearings, of course, we will make our recom-
mendation to the Senate.
Again I want to say I am gratified that you are here Mr. Gra}^ and
to indicate that I am very impressed with the summary of your
activities since you undertook the acting directorship of the FBI.
Mr. Gray. Thank you, Senator Hruska.
Senator Hruska. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. We will recess now until 2:30.
(Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the committee was recessed until 2:30
p.m. of the same day.)
AFTERNOON SESSION
The Chairman. The committee will come to order.
Senator Hart.
Senator Hart. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Mr. Gray, welcome. I was very late getting in this morning and I
apologize. I was one of the few successful fellows in getting a doctor's
appointment so I had to keep it.
TESTIMONY OF LOUIS PATEICK GRAY III— Eesumed
Mr. Gray. You should today, Senator, they are precious commodi-
ties.
Senator Hart. On Monday, you were gracious enough to stop at the
office and I did indicate to you areas of concern, shared by others, I
am sure, on the committee, that we would w-ant to have developed for
the record.
Inasmuch as I was not here this morning, either to hear your state-
ment or the bulk of the questioning, I hope I am not repetitious. If I
am, please tell me.
The Senate and the public would hope that these hearings would be
helpful in providing information in two somewhat separate and dis-
tinct areas.
The first involves your performance in the admittedly brief tenure as
Acting Director. Questions there have been raised about whether the
Bureau is becoming more politicall.y responsive to the White House, or
at least more politicized. I am told that you made reference to that in
your prepared statement and I am sure we would want to clarify that
for the record.
The second area the committee and the public would want de-
veloped, if possible, involves really not you personally but certainly
56
your own views with respect to it are important, and this is the
structure and policy of the Bureau, the organization and the poUcies
and the practices of the Bureau. In this area, I am told, there has been
precious little congressional oversight since the early 1920's. That is a
long time and the agency has become immensely important, and, while
recognizing the necessity for it, increasingly Americans sense its poten-
tial hurt in the kind of free society we seek to develop here. In the
past few years there have been some suggestions made about improv-
ing some aspects of the Bureau's operations and I would like to discuss
those with you, too.
However, it would seem to me, Mr. Chairman, that I should not get
at this time into the broader structure and policy questions. The
questions I heard of Senator Ervin's, and I am sure others, bear on the
first; namely, the nominee's record as Acting Director. It might, for
continuity and understandability, be better if we stayed on the period
as Acting Director and the issues involved there, and defer the struc-
tural questions, if that is what we may call them, until later. I will
proceed that way.
This morning, when I was here, you did discuss with Senator
Ervin the newsstory that indicated that, at or about the time of the
Republican Convention in Miami, a report, or several FBI reports^
were shown to an individual who was a potential or did become a
grand jury witness. This bears on the Watergate as it had developed
up to that point.
You explained that, while you were not in position to say that this
had or had not happened, you had asked John Dean in the White
House whether the story was correct and that Mr. Dean said to you
"I didn't show them to the subject and didn't have them with me."
That is a fair summary?
Mr. Gray. That is correct; that is correct, Senator.
Senator Hart. Now, tell me again, help me to understand, why
it would be possible that a Bureau file or files would be in the hands
of somebody at the Republican Convention.
Mr. Gray. I don't know that I can explain that a Bureau file
or files were in the possession of somebody at the Republican Conven-
tion, but I can start from ground zero as I did this morning and explain
exactly what I had explained to Senator Ervin, which is essentially
this: That at the outset of this investigation I resolved that the
investigation would be very closely held. There were those contacts
between the case agents working the case and the assistant U.S.
attorneys who were also working on the case here in the U.S. attor-
ney's office. There were also those contacts in the Federal Bureau
of Investigation in the General Investigative Division which had
cognizance of this case, with the office of the Assistant Attorney
General, Criminal Division, where the information was also closely
held.
Then I went on to say that at the very outset, and in accordance
with standard FBI operating procedures, there was a memorandum
prepared setting forth facts and circumstances of the case as of that
date, June 19, 1972, and accompanying that memorandum was a
letterhead memorandum, which is a type of writing that we have
in the Bureau, and a letter transmitting this memorandum of facts
and circumstances, one to the Attorney General, and one to Mr.
Haldeman, and I nixed that. I said, "No, we'll not do this."
57
Then I went on to say that over the ensuing days there were reports
dehvered to Mr. Petersen, interviews, you know, our FD-302's,
our raw interview forms, and our teletypes, and I went on to say I
would put a listing of these deliveries and the dates of delivery into
the record as an exhibit.
Then I went on to say that on the 19th of July, it was requested
by Mr. Dean, acting in his capacity as Counsel to the President of
the United States, and in discharge of his responsibility, to inquire
into the involvement of White House people on the staflF of the
President in this matter and make a recommendation to the President,
and that he wanted a full report in writing.
I then asked for an opinion of our Office of Legal Counsel, and the
opinion came back that at our own initiative we had no duty to fur-
nish such a report, but that the request of the head of the executive
branch of the Government was certainly an entirely different matter.
Then, on the following day I ordered that a letterhead memorandum
summarizing the investigation to date be prepared, and be sent to
the Attorney General. I have every reason to believe, and I must
assume, that in the normal course of events, although I cannot testify
under oath as a fact, that this letterhead memorandum was delivered
to Mr. Dean. I believe it may have been but I cannot testify as to
the fact under oath that it was, because I don't know.
Then, following that, Mr. Dean made a request to me that I pro-
vide him with copies of our FD-302's, our interview reports, our tele-
types, and those documents that had been made available to me in
order to assist him in the performance of his duties, and I did.
Then I said this morning in a response from Senator Ervin when
he asked me is it possible to conclude that this could have occurred,
this showing to Segretti, and I said, "Yes, Senator, it is possible that
it could have occurred." But when I read the newsstory, I called
John Dean and asked him if he did this, and he said, "No, I did not
have any FBI reports with me at Miami."
And why did I call John Dean? Because he is the only person over
there who had custody of these reports.
Senator Hart. You were sufficiently — you thought the matter
sufficiently serious, and certainly it was, that when you saw, or the
newsstory was called to your attention, you did call Mr. Dean and
inquired if, in fact, it had happened?
Mr. Gray. Yes, I did, Senator, and as a matter of fact, to more
fully inform you, every newsstory that has been written regarding
this case we have checked very, very carefully just as an adjunct to
our own investigative efforts which preceded some of these stories by
as much as a month to 6 weeks in time.
Senator Hart. When Mr. Dean said to you "No, I did not do it,
I didn't have the FBI reports with me," did you ask him if he knew
who might have had them with him?
Mr. Gray. No; because the thought never entered
Senator Hart. Did you ask him whether anybody had done it?
Mr. Gray. No, I didn't, because the thought never entered my
mind. You know when you are working closely with the office of the
Presidency the presumption is one of regularity in the conduct of the
Nation's business, and I didn't even engage in the thought process
that I would set up a presumption here of illegality and I didn't
consider it.
58
Senator Hart. There would have been illegality or irregularity if,
in fact, that report had been shown to the man in Miami?
Mr. Gray. Absolutely, I would classify it as a grievous and most
serious breach of trust.
Senator Hart. Except for asking Mr. Dean did he or not, you are
just presuming regularity, there has been no investigation beyond
the inquiry to Mr. Dean?
Mr. Gray. No, I did not and I have got to engage in that
presumption in the position I am in. This was the individual to
whom I had given the reports. I gave them to him for a specific
purpose and I am certainly not going to engage in a presumption he
did something else with them and I did not check it.
Senator Hart. Would it have been the same if you had given them
to me and I had told you that I had not given them to anybody but
you had read in the pai)er I had?
Mr. Gray. If I were a member of the legislative branch and was in
the position such as I found myself in relation to the President, it
would have been the same. Senator.
Senator Hart. Presidents have been known to have fallible servants
and worse.
Mr. Gray. This is true. This is true.
Senator Hart. Then what agency, if not the Bureau, would we
expect to pursue them?
Mr. Gray. I saw no reason under the circumstances to pursue it.
I asked the individual to whom I had given them. He could tell
from the tone of my voice I was really ticked, and he gave me what I
believe to be an honest answer. Hes aid, "Absolutely not. Under no cir-
cumstances would I do such a thing."
Senator Hart. If your investigation had shown that somebody in
some fashion imoroperly obtained, from Mr. Dean's desk or file, that
document, Mr. Dean also would have been ticked, I suppose?
Mr. Gray. That is correct.
Senator Hart. But he would have kno\\Ti whether impropriety
had been involved?
Mr. Gray. That is correct, Senator. But these are not, you know,
just documents. These documents have been very, very, very
carefully watched and accounted for, and inventoried all throughout
the chain. This was not a course of action that I even considered at
the time. And I don't consider it now — I really don't.
Senator Hart. Well, the presumption runs in favor of Circuit Court
of Appeals judges, too, and even there inquiry has developed
im])roprieties on occasions.
^Ir. Gray. This is possible. The human fallibility is there.
Senator Hart. That is right. Why wouldn't you think of that and
attempt to determine whether, in fact, it did occur?
Mr. Gray. Well, I didn't.
Senator Hart. Why didn't you?
Mr. Gray. Senator, because I reasoned that I asked the man a
straight question with, an awful lot of ire and hritation in my voice,
and I feel I got a straight answer back.
Senator Hart. Well, all that that investigation determined was
that Mr. Dean didn't do it.
Mr. Gray. That is correct, sir.
Senator Hart. But
Mr. Gray. And I know
59
Senator Hart. There are other possibilities. The kind of FBI
document that had been disclosed at Miami did reach, as you have
already told us, the U.S. attorney's office; they had copies, the
Justice Department itself had copies. You asked Mr. Dean if the
disclosure had been as a result of his showdng the documents, and
he said no, but we still don't know whether somebody else did.
Mr. Gray. No, but the situation was such that 1 made the decision
on the scene, at the time, for considerations that 1 deemed to be
proper, and it is a decision that 1 made. It is a decision that 1 am
accountable for, and if the members of this committee judge it to
be an error, so be it. 1 did not judge it to be an error.
Senator Hart. Well, there is nothing easier than being a Alonday
morning quarterback, when the heat is off and excitement has passed.
But if you had pursued the investigation, would you not feel more
comfortable today?
Mr. Gray. No, sir, because I think I would have gotten essentially
the same answer from Mr. Dean. I would have gotten "No, 1 did
not do it. Two, these were secure in my safe, and there was no way
they could get out, and nobody had access to them but me."
Senator Hart. What would you think if you had asked the U.S.
attorne3''s office, "Wliat happened to yours — did you or any of j^our
people misplace them during the period they might have been shown
to somebody in Miami?"
Mr. Gray. No, I did not consider doing that.
Senator Hart. As I say, wouldn't you be more comfortable now
if 3^ou had asked the Attorney General?
Mr. Gray. No, I would not be more comfortable because, to be
more comfortable, I would have had to engage in a presumption these
people were dishonest and performed an illegal act. Frankl}', 1 didn't
believe the allegation then, and don't believe it now.
Senator Hart. They would have done nothing illegal if somebody
had filched a file from them and showed it to somebody.
Mr. Gray. I think it is a serious breach of trust, and I don't think
it is conduct of the kind
Senator Hart. What about Segretti himself? Do 3'ou think that it
would have been desirable to ask him who showed it to him?
Mr. Gray. No, I didn't consider that, either. I don't think an}' of
my investigators
Senator Hart. We never will know whether that happened?
Mr. Gray. That is right. There may be an opportunity later on. I
don't know what the investigation is going to show as it continues, you
know. There are still some steps to be taken, as j'-ou know, Senator.
Senator Hart. Well, after a brilliant 9 months as a U.S. attorney
in Detroit, I am just going to say I think a U.S. attorney, dealing
with an agent with a presentation like that, might have said "Why
don't you ask those fellows?"
Mr. Gray. Well, suffice it to say that no one sent an}^ type of a
recommendation to me that we do this sort of thing. I think if anybody
in the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or in the Criminal Di^^sion,
or in the U.S. attorney's office, had thought that we should pursue
this, that suggestion would have been made to me. I made the decision
as soon as I read the newspaper article — and I can remember reading
it — to call Air. Dean immediately'. And I am satisfied
60
Senator Hart. That is why, on a Monday morning, it seems so
strange. You recognized the newspaper was reporting an illegal action.
It could have involved a number of people apparently. You called
one, and he said "I didn't do it." But even now we don't know what
these other fellows, who had the documents, did.
Mr. Gray. Senator, who would have been the most obvious person
to have done something like that if it was done? It wouldn't be in the
U.S. attorney's office, it wouldn't be in the Criminal Division, it would
have been somebody outside of that gamut, you know, unless it was
somebody who, well, was a fellow really grabbing those papers. I say
to you again that I considered all the factors, I made the decision, and
I am accountable for the decision; I would likely make the same
decision again.
Senator Hart. But you are left, as you replied to Senator Ervin, in
a position where you cannot either affirm or deny that the thing
occurred.
Mr. Gray. No, I cannot.
Senator Hart. In the discussion with Senator Ervin involving Mr.
Segretti — my notes seem to suggest here — you said you investigated
him for possible criminal action but did not investigate alleged
political activities. Now, as I get it, Segretti's name came up when
leads involving Watergate figures were being followed, and at some
point in that Watergate story there were suggestions that Segretti had
sabotaged the presidential campaign, or had sought to engage people
who were alleged to have left false messages and infiltrated, and so on.
Is that what you meant by political activity of Segretti?
Mr. Gray. Yes, that is what I meant, Senator. And actually, you
know, we interviewed Segretti very early in the game, on the 26th of
June, and when these newspaper accounts came out, this was new
information to us because these were things that Mr. Segretti had
not told us. What I did at that time was to ask once again my Office
of Legal Counsel whether or not on the basis of the information made
available to us, Segretti had committed any offenses within our
jurisdiction. That opinion was, no. But I still said, "Check with the
Department of Justice." That opinion came back, no, and we were not
directed to do any further investigation over on this side of the fence
with regard to whatever Segretti was doing in answering — in asking
questions, setting up any kind of a network, or whatever it was, he
didn't tell us about it. The only thing we had to go on was the news-
paper accounts of what he was alleged to have been doing. But we
made the checks in the Federal Bureau of Investigation, because I
knew this question was going to come up, and I wanted to meet it
head on, and we did.
Senator Hart. So far as you know, did anybody investigate Segretti
with respect to the so-called political activity including the infiltration
and espionage and so on of a political campaign?
Mr. Gray. Senator, however you want to characterize it, we did
not interview Segretti or investigate into any of the political machina-
tions in which he is alleged to have indulged.
We interviewed him on the basis that he participated in Watergate
or he didn't. He fell within the IOC statute, intercepted communica-
tion statute, or he didn't.
61
Senator Hart. Wiiat if some of those other activities involved the
CoiTiij)t Practices Act or Federal campaign laws, but did not involve
Watergate?
Mr. Gray. Certainly under those cases I would have assumed that
the Department of Justice would have said yes.
First, I would have assumed that my own Office of Legal Counsel
would have said, "Yes, there is sufficient information here to establish
that he falls within the perimeter of the statute and we should in-
vestigate it."
Then I would assume that the Department would have given me
such opinion. On the basis of the information I had, I don't think any
opinion to investigate it would have been justified.
Senator Hart. In an answer to Senator Ervin, and in your answer
to my question raising the same fact, you said that, earlier in the
investigation of Watergate, a letter, a summary of the case to date,
something like that, had come up through regular channels to you,
and one was addressed to the Attorney General and the other ad-
dressed to Mr. Haldeman.
Mr. Gray. That is correct, sir, and I also said that it came up
through the channels without any initiation or instigation on my part.
It was part of standard operating procedure within the FBI,
Senator Hart. Is it still standard?
Mr. Gray. To do what?
Senator Hart. To have a summary of progress in a criminal
investigation?
Mr, Gray. Yes, it would be, but in this case ■
Senator Hart. Reported to the White House?
Mr. Gray. Yes, it would be. But in this particular investigation at
this particular time, I wanted to hold every single thing as close as
I could hold it, and during, as it turned out, during the first week
there were two leaks
Senator Hart. I am not a good questioner, but I must be especially
bad today. That answer would suggest to me that every FBI progress
report finds a copj^ sent to the Wliite House, and I know you clon't
mean that.
Mr. Gray. No.
Senator Hart. I am trying to find out why.
Mr. Gray. I am talking about the major cases.
The Chairman. Let us have order.
Mr. Gray. Wliat we call major special cases. We don't send that
information over all the time, but in a major special case the White
House is kept informed of progress ; or if the case happens to involve,
let's say, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of HEW,
the Secretary is kept informed. There are cases, however, Senator
Hart, in which we make a decision not to keep people informed for
reasons of our own choosing because we think that leaks might occur.
This very often happens in cases involving fraud against the Govern-
ment, for example. This is a specific example. We protect what we
call in the FBI the Bureau's investigative interests.
Senator Hart. At some stage there was concern that the White
House was concerned in this case.
Mr. Gray. I think there was the possibility right on the first day,
as I testified earlier this morning.
91-831 — 73 5
62
Senator Hart. Why would it be normal
The Chairman. Phil, let him answer.
Mr. Gray. As I testified earlier this morning-, 3:45 p.m.. Pacific
daylight time, when we in the FBI learned that Mr. McCord was
the secmity officer of the Committee To Re-Elect the President, that
right away posed the possibility that we had a very touchy situation
on our hands, no question about it; we were very well aware of it.
Senator Hart. Aware that it might involve the White House?
Mr. Gray. Yes.
Senator Hart. Why would this flow of information go to the White
House?
Mr. Gray. Because investigators who start this process down at the
bottom, not being, perhaps — and I am, you know, engaging in sj)ecu-
lation now — not being, perhaps, as knowledgeable as the u[)per level,
proceeded in the standard BiuTau manner.
I have alread}' offered, and the offer was acce])ted this morning, to
introduce those documents into evidence, and they would be a ])art
of the record. I stopped it. That is part of the thing, Senator Hart,
that I think I am paid to do u}) there, to exercise some judgment, and I
think I exercised that judgment in that particular instance.
Senator Hart. W^ell, in order to stop the possibility of leaks, and
you Avere concerned about the i)ossibility, you felt that the letter ought
not be sent to Mr. Haldeman?
Mr. Gray. I didn't even think it ought to be sent to the Attorney
General. I stopped both of them.
Senator Hart. Why didn't you haA^e the same unease with respect
to the possibility of the leaks of the FBI reports that 3'ou asked ^Ir.
Dean about?
Mr. Gray. There were several reasons. One of them, of course, is
the presumption of regularity that I spoke about earlier, plus the fact
that some 30 or more days had trans])ired, and we hit with the in-
vestigative shock effect that we wanted to hit with, so there are two
very good reasons, and no reason to assume that Mr. Dean was going
to turn right around and do what he is alleged to have done or what is
alleged to have been done in the Segretti case. There were
Senator Hart. I am not even suggesting that Dean did it. I am just
suggesting there are others who, it might have occurred to me, it "\\ ould
have been wise to follow up.
Mr. Gray. I told you, Senator Hart, we did begin to loosen up and
we did begin to send investigators in and we did have contact with the
Assistant U.S. Attorney, so information Mas flowing in the normal
Bureau investigative process.
Mr. Petersen, who is the Assistant Attorney General in charge of
the Criminal Division, tells me in the earl}" days onl}^ he and his Spe-
cial Assistant had access to the information that I was providing him.
Senator Hart. In the course of the W^atergate investigation, did
3'OU, from investigators under you in the Bureau, or through the U.S.
Attorney's Office, have requests or recommendations that the Bureau
interAdew particular people?
Mr. Gray. Very few of them, very few of them, because I tiu'ned
the Bureau loose, as I testified this morning. I pushed the button, I
said, "No holds barred, give it the full court press," and they didn't
have to come around every time they wanted to interview somebody
and ask me and they didn't do it, Senator.
63
Senator Hart. Except on a few occasions?
\lr. Gray. That is right.
Senator Hart, ^^^lat were those?
Mr. Gray. One of them, I think — the matter of whether or not
to interview John Ehriichman came up and, of course, you know tliis
is getting pretty high, and they thought they had better get the boss'
permission before they went that high, and I checked ^^'ith Assistant
Attorney General Petersen and I said, "Go."
Senator Byrd. You said what?
Mr. Gray. I checked witli Assistant Attorney General Petersen
and said "Go."
Senator Hart. Was there anyone not a Government official where
they questioned you or said should the^^ speak to that person?
Mr. Gray. They recommended to me that the}^ interview?
Senator Hart. Or a person they asked to interview?
Mr. Gray. None that I can think of. Maj^be if you tell me the
name of the person you have in mind I may be able to help a^ou.
Senator, because there were several things that came up where I
momentarily said, "Stop until I check this out to see what kind of a
trail we ^\'ill cross," anil it had nothing to do \\'ith politics. It had to
do with national security. But I ^\-ill tell 3'ou the names of those
people. But if 3'ou tell me the name of the person 3'ou have in mind,
I can maybe be more helpful.
Senator Hart. Xo; it just occurred to me that, in as dramatic a
case as this, there might have been highly sensitive although non-
governmental individuals who some agent thought might be able to
provide some information but because of the sensitivity of the person
he would go to you.
Mr. Gray. Well, some of those I initiated on ni}^ own, as I read
certain reports, where I said to hold up until we check this out because
of the fact there might have been some national security overtones
involving another agency. Then when I got clarification and assurance
that this did not exist, we went ahead.
Very simply, part of that was involved with the $89,000. We ran
that down, we ran it do\\'n early in the game.
The Chairman. You are speaking of the CIA now?
Mr. Gray. Yes; I am, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. All right.
Senator Hart. I take it your concern about a possible CIA lead
would relate to national security? Do I so understand that?
Mr. Gray. Yes, Senator; that is true.
Senator Hart. But what I am attempting to get is the name of,
the identification of, anyone in addition to Mr. Ehriichman, whether
in or out of Government, investigators of yours came to you and
said, "I think we ought to see him or her," and did j^ou condition
approval or did you deny approval?
Mr. Gray. No, I never denied any requests at all.
I placed no restriction or limitation other than these I have men-
tioned where I said, "Pause until we check and then we will crank up
speed," but here is what I will do, Senator Hart. I will check the
record again with our investigators to ascertain from them one more
time if there is anybody they had in mind to interview that they
either recommended to me or did not recommend to me.
64
I cannot think of one, I cannot think of one now. We will check the
record and we will supply information in res]3onse.
Senator Hart. Would 3"ou make the same check with res]:)ect to
any proposed documentary investigations that might have been
suggested to you, such as phone records and bank accounts?
Air. Gray. Phone records and bank accounts?
Senator Hart. Phone records and bank accounts.
Mr. Gray. Yes, I know there was a rumor running around, and I
would like to address myself to this. It was that the first week Gray
was going to collapse this investigation in 24 or 48 hours, and that
Gray was not going to permit his agents to subpena Colson's toll
calls.
Senator Hart. Colson's what?
Mr. Gray. Colson's toll calls at the White House, and I called the
Washington field agents into my office on Saturday, June 24, and I
told them these leaks appeared in the paper and I called them in and
said, "One, you know that both are false; two, you know that agents
of the Federal Bureau of Investigation cannot suffer from flapjaw.
We cannot talk and gossip about our cases," and I literally put my
track shoes in their back, and then again I gave them a strong verbal
direction that we were going to press this investigation to the hilt.
On the same morning I was apprised that rumors were running
around town that INIr. Lawrence O'Brien was unhai)py with the
FBI, that we were dragging our feet. I picked ui) the telephone and
called ^Jr. O'Brien and Mr. O'Brien told me he was not unhappy at
all, that we were all over the place and he was very happy the way we
were pursuing this.
So you may have had reference to the Colson toll call records. I
don't know whether you did or not. I don't know whether you had
reference to the 24- to 48-hour collapse, but. Senator, I am going to
answer e^^ery question you want me to answer, and I am going to
answer it for you straight.
Senator Hart. Well, you promised to provide for the record
Mr. Gray. Yes, sir.
Senator Hart (continuing). The names of individuals in and out of
Government with whom an interview^ Avas suggested and 3'ou either
said no, or attached a condition to it. And will j'ou do the same with
respect to documentary investigating materials?
Mr. Gray. Yes, sir, I will be pleased to do that.
(Mr. Gray subsequently submitted the following document:)
Mr. Gray. After researching the matter, Senator Hart, I find that the only
restrictions which I phiced upon any of the investigation, either interviews or
relative to documentary materials, were on account of national security
considerations. These considerations were resolved within a very short period of
time and all interviews which were desired were conducted and all documentary
material which we wanted to review was obtained.
Senator Hart. Now, you talked to Mr. Dean in the White House
about this case; you talked to the Assistant Attorney General in
charge of the Criminial Division, I suppose?
Mr. Gray. Yes, sir.
Senator Hart. With the Attorney General at the time?
Mr. Gray. With the Attorney General at the time?
Senator Hart. In the course of the Watergate investigation, did
you discuss the course of the investigation with the Attorney General
or prospects as you saw them?
65
Mr. Gray. I didn't discuss with him as to how I was to conduct
this investigation other than tlie early days. The first day, as a matter
of fact, June 17, when I gave the orders that it was to be aggressively
pursued, this report was made to him b}^ my No. 2, and he agreed
with it, to pursue it aggressively. At no time did I receive any
direction from him as to how to conduct the investigation; but, 3-es,
I did make progress reports to him.
Senator Hart. Did a^ou discuss the course of the investigation or
the prospects with the former Attorney General, Mr. Mitchell?
Mr. Gray. I did not.
Senator Hart. Did you discuss the course or prospects of the in-
vestigation with anyone not working either full-time for the Wliite
House or the Department of Justice?
Mr. Gray. Gee, that is a pretty broad question.
I don't know to whom you would be referring.
Senator Hart. Anybody outside of Government?
Mr. Gray. 1 can think of newspaper men, I can think of visitors —
and I would have to review that, but my natural inclination is to
answer no, that I would have no reason to do this. In fact, in all the
press availabilities and all the rest of it, I was first under the pro-
hibition of the regulations of the Department and then under Judge
Sirica's order so m}^ natural inclination is no. But that is such a broad
question I hesitate to answer it, but j^et I will answer it, no.
Senator Hart. I could narrow it, I suppose, by saying, excludmg
newspaper and media people?
Mr. Gray. Because 1 did talk procedurally, 3^ou Imow, in nw press
availabilities. 1 w^ould tell them how 1 was domg.
Senator Hart. Yes, but I am now excluding the media.
Mr. Gray. Yes.
Senator Hart. But including, by wa}^ of suggestion, not to make it
multicategory, persons who had an association neither with the
Wliite House nor the Department but with the Committee to Re-
elect the President?
Mr. Gray. No, sir. No, sir.
Senator Hart. Like Republican Party officials.
Mr. Gray. No, indeed. No, indeed.
Senator Hart. 1 have a note here on the Ehrlichman letter. Could
you provide us with information regarding the request which the
FBI relayed from the White House to the FBI field offices asking for
information on local law and order issues relative to the campaign?
Let me enumerate the items and it may be that you will want to
provide them for the record: The text of the request from Mr. Ehrlich-
man or his assistant, and I am told it was his assistant; any mternal
FBI memorandum or comment regarding whether or how^ the request
would be implemented; the text of the message which w^ent out to the
field offices; and the text of the material furnished to the \^Tiite House
or Justice Department for transmittal to the White House.
Mr. Gray. Yes, sir; I would be glad to do that. Senator. In fact,
this morning I got Senator Ervin's permission to put that type of
material in the record and I believe the only exception would be the
response of the White House and we will provide that.
66
(Mr. Gray subsequently submitted the following documents:)
Memorandum
September 8, 1972.
To L. Patrick Gray, Director, FBI.
From Ralpli E. Erickson, Deputy Attorney General.
Subject: Information for Campaign Trips: Events and Issues (Attached White
House ^Memorandum) .
Would you undertake to evaluate'the questions asked of us by John Ehrlichman
in the attached memorandum and give me the benefit of 3'our response.
Although we are be.vond the due date of this memorandum already, please make
your response as quickly as possible.
The White House,
Washinglon, D.C., September 1, 1972.
Memoraudum for the Deputy Attorney General.
Subject : Information for Oampaign Trips : Events and Issues.
In order for John Ehrlichman to give the President maximum svipport during
campaign trips over the next several weeks, the following information is required
for each of the States listed at Tab A.
(1) Identification of the substantive issue problem areas in the criminal justice
field for that particular state. Please limit yourself to problems of sufficient
magnitude that the President or John Ehrlichman might be expected to be aware
of them. Brevity is the key, and often all tliat is necessarj' is to flag a sensitive
problem so it can be avoided or more extensive jjreparation can be undertaken
should we choose to speak about it.
(2) k list of events relating to the criminal justice area that would be good for
John Ehrlichman to consider doing. For each suggested event, the following
items should be indicated:
(A) Purpose of tlie event.
(B) The nature of the group or institution involved.
(C) The content of the event.
(D) Names of specific peojjle who can be contacted for the purpose of
setting it up (tf)gether with titles, addresses, telephone numbers, etc.).
(E) All trade-off factors to be considered in scheduling the event.
I am receiving separate materials from both LEAA and DALE, so you should
omit any consideration of problems in the area of Federal aid or drugs. I would
expect your list of problems to be fairly brief, but there are certainly criminal
justice problems (such as the Fort Worth Five) that we should flag for the
President.
I know this is rushing you, but I need the information by close of business,
Thursday, September 7, 1972.
Thanks, Ralph.
Geoff Shepard.
California (San Francisco and Los New Jersey
Angeles) New York City
Connecticut Ohio
Florida Pennsylvania (Philadelphia and
Georgia CAtlanta) Pittsburgh)
Illinois (Chicago) South Dakota
Massachusetts Tennessee
Michigan Texas (San Antonio)
Missouri (Kansas City)
9/8/72
(Teletype) (Plaintext) (Immediate)
To SACS
San Francisco Kansas City
Los Angeles Newark
New Haven New York City
IVIiami Cleveland
Tampa Cincinnati
Jacksonville Pliiladelphia
Atlanta Pittsburgli
Chicago Minneapolis
Boston Knoxville
Detroit Memphis
San Antonio
67
From Acting Director, FBI
Inquiry From White House
Following memorandum received from Wliite House:
"In order for John Ehrlichman to give President maximum support during
campaign trips over the next several weeks, the following inforination is required
for each of the states listed.
(1) Identification of the substantive issue problem areas in the criminal justice
field for that particular state. Please limit yourself to problems of sufficient
magnitude that the President or John Ehrlichman might be expected to be aware
of them. Brevity is the key, and often all that is necessary is to flag a sensitive
problem so it can be avoided or more extensive preparation can be undertaken
should we choose to speak about it.
(2) A list of events relating to the criminal justice area that would be good for
John Ehrlichman to consider doing. For each suggested event, the following items
should be indicated:
(A) Purpose of the event.
(B) The nature of the group or institution involved.
(C) The content of the event.
(D) Names of specific people who can be contacted for the purpose of
setting it up (together with titles, addres-;es, telephone numl^ers, etc.);
(E) All trade-off factors to be considered in scheduling the event.
"Receiving separate materials from both LEAA and DALE, so you should
omit any consideration of problems in the area of federal aid or drugs. Would
expect your list of problems to be fairly Ijrief, but there are certainly criminal
justice prt)blems (such as the Fort Worth Five) that we should flag for the
President."
In accordance with above, you should submit Ijy immediate teletype to be
received by the Bureau no later than eight A.M., Monday, September eleventh
pertinent material which should include matters pertaining to gun control legisla-
tion, corruption in police departments, probation and parole, etc. Deadline must
be met.
U.S. Government — Memorandum
Seplemher 11, 1972.
To Mr. Bishop.
From M. A. Jones.
Subject: Events and issues (attached White House memorandum)
In accordance with the request contained in referenced memorandum, there is
attached material from various field divisions and offices of this Bureau for con-
sideration. This material has been broken down by state and locality to conform
with the listing submitted by the White House.
RECOMMENDATIONS
(1) That the attached material be approved for transmittal to the White House
through the Department.
(2) That after approval, this memorandum and attachments be returned to
your (Mr. Bishop's) office for transmittal to the office of Ralph E. Erickson
Deputy Attorney General.
Enclosures.
CALIFORNIA
A number of California Sheriffs are planning protests with U.S. Attorne}'
General and possibly airing views to news media re fact Civil Rights Division,
U.S. Department of Justice, instituted August 2.3, 1972, due process civil rights
investigations of county jails in 12 major counties in California on allegation
pretrial detainees' treatment in all California County Jails may constitute
Federal violation. These investigations currently in progress.
Ray Davis, Chief of Police, Walnut Creek, California, and President California
Chapter of the International Association Chiefs of Police, directed a letter to
Attorney General Richard Kleindienst August 1.5, 1972, expressing concern over
the remarks made by B. H. Holman, Director, Communitj^ Relations Service,
U.S. Department of Justice, at the National Convention of Police and Com-
munity Relations (PCR) officers recently held in San Francisco. Holman urged
PCR men to resist all efforts by heads of their res|)ective agencies to "whitewash"
PCR programs and turn the men into public relations officers to make their re-
spective departments look good.
68
San Francisco Bay area police officers are resentful over actions of U.S. Govern-
ment, in indicting 12 Alameda County deputies, who took part in restoring order in
1969 Berkeley riots, for civil rights violations.
SheriflP Richard Hongisto, newly elected Sheriff in San Francisco County, is a
controversial figure who has ideas on law enforcement and prison reform which do
not agree with those of other law enforcement officials and/or Bay area judges.
Hongisto was supported b}' and associated with the homosexual communitj'
during his recent election.
During the past several years California has experienced a large increase in
pornographic trafficking. The production, distribution, and sale of pornographic
film and literature have continued to increase. This increase is based on the
"favorable climate" within California, i.e., the lax attitude of local, state and
Federal judges as well as recent Supreme Court decision.
The California Chapter, FBI National Academy Associates, meets September
17-20, 1972, Palo Alto, California:
(A) To bring together FBI National Academy Associates throughout the
State of California.
(B) Law enforcement officers who are graduates of the FBI National Academy.
(C) To discuss current law enforcement problems peculiar to the State of
California.
(D) Chief John Fabri, First Vice President, Chief of Police, Fremont, Cali-
fornia, telephone 796-3232. Estimated attendance 200.
National Conference of Metropolitan Courts, October 11-13, 1972, Mark
Hopkins Hotel, San Francisco:
(A) National Convention of Judges from the Metropolitan Courts.
(B) Municipal Court judges meeting throughout the United States.
(C) To discuss problems Municipal Courts are confronted with.
(D) Judge Ray Arata, President, Superior Court, 16.5 City Hall, San Francisco,
California. Estimated attendance 200.
CONNECTICUT
Connecticut is a state which houses the principal manufacturers of firearms in
the country, and consequent!}' the question of gun control legislation would be
of keen interest to many of the residents of the state, many of whom are employed
b}' aforementioned manufacturers.
FLORIDA
The State of Florida has convened a special House Committee on Capital
Punishment in Tallahassee, Florida, to consider the legal aspects of restoring the
death penalty in Florida. The Attorney General of Florida in a memorandum to
Governor Reubin Askew dated July 7, 1972, made an analysis of the Supreme
Court decision of June 29, 1972, in "JFurman vs. Georgia, et al," abolishing capital
punishment. The Attorney General recommended the creation of a special com-
mittee to consider all aspects of the death penalty in Florida and possible new
legislation concerning this matter. Hearings were held at Raiford State Peniten-
tiary during August, 1972, Vv^here six death row inmates related that as far as
they were concerned capital punishment was not a deterrent and two of the six
stated they would rather die than spend the rest of their lives behind bars with
no hope of parole.
The special House Committee on Capital Punishment on August 31, 1972, Vjy
five to one vote, voted to look into legal means to reinstate the death penalty for
certain crimes but rejected generally the suggestion that life sentences be given
for certain crimes with no possibility of parole.
Additional hearings will be held "throughout the State of Florida during Sep-
tember and October so that final recommendations for legislation might be pre-
pared in time for a special one-day session called by Governor Askew on November
14, 1972, to consider legislation relating to the death penalty. Several prefiled
bills have been introduced into the Florida Legislature, which provided prosecu-
tion for certain offenses originally punishable by death in Florida.
There is considerable interest in recent efforts to remove Sheriff Willis V.
McCall of Lake County, Florida.
By way of background, Governor Askew ordered an investigation into the
April 23, 1972, death of Tommy Vickers in the Lake County Jail. Vickers was a
mentally retarded Negro who was in the Lake County Jail on a minor traffic
violation and subsequently died of comijlications caused by a blow to the stomach.
A grand jury in Orange County, Florida, returned an indictment against McCall
on June 12, 1972, charging him with simple assault and second degree murder.
69
Governor Askew immediately ordered the suspen.-iion of McCall and trial was
scheduled for August I'l, 1972, after McCall pled not guilty to the indictment.
On August 19, 1972, McCall was found innocent by a six-member jury who
deliberated only one hour and fifteen minutes. ]McCall remains under suspension,
but is running for re-election November 7, 1972.
McCall has long been an extremely controversial figure and interest ran high
in the charges and subsequent trial of McCall throughout Florida, but particu-
larly in the area around Lake County. Because of the intense interest in McCall
and the fact that he has been involved in numerous problems relating to law en-
forcement and his relationship with members of the minority race, it is felt that
any discussion concerning the I^IcCall case would not result in an objective an-
alysis of the problem but would rather be based upon the strong personal feeling
of the supporters of McCall in his long reign as Sheriff of Lake County. Believed
any discussion of the McCall case should be avoided as it would not lend itself to
an objective analysis.
One major case which is receiving a great amount of local and national publicity
is the indictment of six Vietnam Veterans Against the War members on antiriot
conspiracy charges. This case involves the indictment by a Federal grand jury on
July 13, 1972 at Tallahassee, Florida, of Scott Camil, John W. Kniflfin, William J.
Patterson, Peter P. Mahoney, Alton C. Foss, and Donald P. Perdue on above
charges in connection with plans for disruption and engaging in violent activities
at the Republican National Cc^nvention. The group is now publiclv known as the
'•Gainesville Six." The trial is set for October 10, 1972, at Gainesville, Florida.
During the Federal grand jury session four Vietnam Veterans Against the War
members including Robert Wayne Beverly, Jack Lee Jennings, John Victor Cham-
bers, and William Bruce Horton were given immunity to testify but refused to do
so and as a result were cited for contempt of court and incarcerated at Talla-
hassee, Florida. They are now referred to as the "Tallahassee Four" and were
recently released on bond as a result of a bail hearing ordered b}' U.S. Supreme
Court Justice William O. Douglas.
Believed since trial in above matter is pending and subjects are represented by
battery of "movement" attorneys, any comments whatsoever would be considered
prejudicial and immediately capitaUzed upon bj' the press.
GEORGI.\ (.VTLANTA)
Stimulated by public and press interest, in May, 1972, Georgia Governor
Jimmy Carter declared "war" on organized crime. A special Federal Grand
Jury, as well as a special Fulton County, Georgia, Grand Jurv, is presently
proi)ing "organized crime." Special intelligence squads supplemented financialh'
by LEAA grants have been formed to combat this problem.
Atlanta has very high homicide rate attributable to eas}' availabilitj' of guns.
Black Vice Mayor Jackson, Atlanta, has requested state legislation to control
possession of firearms.
Federal Grand Jur.y now sitting at Atlanta to hear testimony concerning
alleged inequities in decisions rendered by the Georgia Board of Pardons and
Parole.
Busing of school children continues to be of concern. Atlanta city schools operate
under majority tfi minority plan, approved by U. S. District Court, which allows
children at school in which they are in majority to transfer to school at which
they are a minority. Neighborhood schools appear to be preference of most parents.
Annual State Convention of the Peace Officers Association of Georgia, Jeykll
Island, Georgia, September 10-12, 1972. Association is composed of all types and
levels of peace officers in Georgia. Raymond Purvis, Deputy Sheriff, Bibb County
(Macon), is current President.
ILLINOIS (CHICAGO)
Organized crime particularly in Chicago remains a problem in spite of 312
convictions of organized crime figures fiscal year 1969 through 1971 and 176
organized crime figures currently pending prosecution. Gangland slayings are
tojjical in press particularly Southside Chicago.
Police corruption is extremely topical in press regarding Chicago Police Depart-
ment. FBI using Hobbs Act has indicted 17 Chicago police officers, convicted six
and investigation and grand jury resulted in 50 additional police officers suspended
for use of Fifth Amendment.
70
Chicago Alderman Fred Hubbard, alleged to have embezzled $100,000 of
Federal funded program for better emplo.yment opportunities for minority
groups in building trades, was recentlj^ arrested by FBI, Los Angeles, and returned
to Chicago to await trial.
Racetrack scandal involving ex- Governor Otto Kerner, presently on leave of
absence from position U. S. Judge, Appeals Court, Seventh Circuit, also allegedly
involves additional prominent Chicago-area people. Scandal involves alleged
preferential treatment for racing dates in return for racetrack stock at low price.
Internal Revenue Service is prosecuting for Income Tax Evasion and Hobbs Act.
Vicious and violent crime is extremelj^ topical in Chicago area press at this time
due to two triple slayings in Chicago suburban areas recentlj^ and one vicious
rape murder in downtown Lake Front Park area.
Gun control is extremely topical in press particularly in view of vicious crimes
set forth above. State of Illinois has individual firearms owner identification
registration which is extremely unpopular in Southern Illinois. Concealed weapons
are illegal in Illinois. Individual firearms are registered in Chicago. Gun homi-
cides in Chicago by youth under 20 are on increase, from 38 in 1965 to 271 in 1970,
an increase of 613 percent. Of 216 gun law convictions. Cook Count,y, Illinois,
as of August, 1972, onl.y 55 were given jail sentence and only 21 of those received
60 days or more. General opinion is that laws are adequate, but stricter enforce-
ment by courts is essential.
MASSACHUSETTS
Massachusetts Correctional Institutions
There currently exists a controversy concerning the Massachusetts Correctional
Institutions which hinges around the appointment of and the alleged liberal policies
of the current Massachusetts Correctional Institutions Commissioner John Boone.
During past several months there has been considerable unrest at several of the
penal institutions within the state including the recent deaths of two prison
employees, a convict and his wife who allegedly brought the convict a weapon
and/or ammunition when she visited him. A suit has been filed in state court in
an attempt to remove Boone alleging that he does not have the necessary qualifica-
tions required by state law to direct the s.ystem. In addition, several top career
prison officials have been removed, replaced, or resigned.
Boston Police Department
Edmund L. INIcNamara, after two five-year terms was not reappointed as
Commissioner of Police by ]\Iayor Kevin White and position is still vacant. A
recent state investigation allegedly indicates numerous Boston Police officers
including high officials, were paid sums of money by gambling element. There
has recently been a reassignment of key administrative personnel coincidental
with the disclosure of the alleged "pay offs." Mayor White publicly denies any
connection between above situations. This matter has and continues to receive
publicity and speculation as Federal and state investigation continues.
MICHIGAN
Substantive problem areas which might become an issue in the criminal justice
field are: (1) cross district busing; (2) Hud-housing frauds; (3) "stress" (stop
robberies enjoy safe streets). This is a decoy procedure used by the Detroit,
Michigan, Police Department in ghetto areas which has resulted in the killing
of 14 subjects by police. The majority of those killed have been black and there
have been law suits filed against the city in an effort to force a discontinuance of
this program; city officials and police have maintained this program has caused a
significant decrease in crime; (4) attacks on police, there is a continued increase
in the number of attacks on police, which is a big concern to city and state law
enforcement officials; (n) racial problems in police department, young black police
officers in the Detroit Police Department have formed a group called "Concerned
Police Officers for Equal Justice." There is constant feuding between white and
black officers in the Detroit Police Department, which has recently surfaced. An
incident has occurred where black officers jumped white officers who had a black
under arrest demanding their brother be released. Trial Board action is now being
held by Detroit Police officials against both black and white officers because of
internal dissension. The black officers group has made statement indicating they
would support their own black people against the police department if another
riot occurs.
71
Only event of any significance occurring in the immediate future in INIichigan
is the combined Michigan Bar Association and Judicial conference being held in
Detroit on September 22, 1972.
MISSOURI (KANSAS CITY)
Controversy has arisen over possible placement of maximum security prison in
Southeast Missouri as many authorities feel it should be located near urban areas,
where the large percentage of inmates originate, so their families may visit them
frequentlj%
NEW JERSEY
The most significant substantive issue in criminal justice field in New Jersej^ is
corruption among police and civic officials. Approximately 1 50 elected or appointed
officials in New Jersey have been charged with taking bribes or kickbacks. Con-
viction of Newark Mayor Hugh Addonizio for kickback scheme with major La
Cosa Nostra figure and conviction of Jersey City officials on similar scheme have
triggered allegations of score or more similar cases. Any of these could come to
fruition at any time and produce major scandal-type case.
Typical is recent indictment of former New Jersey Secretary of State Paul Sher-
win for requiring political contribution kickbacks from highway contractors. Cur-
rent New Jersey Attorney Genei-al George Kugler is imder fire for allegedh' not
taking action on learning of complaints against Sherwin.
Police protection of gambling operations widespread and appears to exist in
most major population areas of the state. Business and political forces in Atlantic
City are lobbjang for legalized casino-type gambUng and rely heavily on argument
that illegal gambling fosters police C(jrruption. Commissions probing New Jersey
racial outbreaks have commented on "pervasive feeling of corruption" as being
one of underlying causes of unrest.
Court backlog is also serious criminal justice problem in New Jersey. Newark
FBI has approximately eight hundred defendants awaiting trial and substantial
number of convicted defendants have not been sentenced due to workload in pre-
sentence reports by probation office.
One of the more pressing problems in metro area such as Newark is the abuse
of the trucking industry. Hijacking runs rampant in these geographical locations.
Although the offenders are repeaters in over fifty percent of the hijackings,
and the loads stolen amoimt to hundreds of thousands of dollars, these men
are released on bail after each offense. They are not pnjinptly brought to
trial and are free to hijack again and again, receiving minimal custodj' sentences
or probation.
NEW YORK CITY
Problem areas in the criminal justice field, New York area, include corruption,
which has been longstanding, within the New York City Police Department.
Officers have been arrested, being charged with [bribery, narcotics, etc., and in
addition, State police and New York City police officers have been arrested by the
Federal Bureau of Investigation in violation of the gambling laws and other
offenses, such as bank robbery. Newburg, New York, Police Department is sub-
ject of corruption.
A Commission known as the Knapp Commission conducted an extensive study
and held hearings which resulted in the arrest of numerous members of the New-
York City Police Department. One specific recommendation of the Knapp Com-
mission was the appointment of a special district attorney to look into and handle
corruption, which received the ajiproval of Commissioner Murphy. However, this
recommendation has not been entirely resolved to date.
At the i^resent time there are a total of eight vacancies on the Federal Bench
in the eastern and southern districts of New York, which without question creates
a problem in the backlog of prosecutive action.
OHIO
The only substantive issue apparent in criminal justice field in Northern Ohio
is Kent State University incident which occurred May 4, 1970. Although the
Justice Department has decided to convene no Federal grand jury in this matter,
the Kent State University affair is potentially a problem area and administration
officials appearing in this area could conceivably be questioned concerning this
matter.
72
The Ohio Association of Chiefs of Police will hold th<'ir annual conference
September 13 through 15, 1972, at the Sheraton-Da.vton Hotel, Daj'-ton, Ohio,
with approximatel.7 275 people estimated to attend. Annual meeting includes
installing new president, review of policies, and solving problems. Person to he
contacted concerning participation is Chief Pi-obert Woods, Moraine, Ohio, Police
Department, first vice president to be installed as president, telephone number
513-29S-7424.
PENNSYLVANIA
Pennsylvania policy for releasing criminals under a "furlough" plan has upset
certain courts and the public. Plan was approved by Governor Milton Shapp.
Yablonski murder trials of Albert Pass and William Prater to begin late Octo-
ber, 1972. Pennsylvania State Supreme Court hearing arguments on pre-trial
motions beginning September 25, 1972. Yablonski murder and resulting investi-
gation highlighted corruption in United Mine Workers.
FBI investigating FHA and real estate industry in Philadelphia. Several
persons have been indicted, including former director of FHA, for false statements
and payoffs.
Fraud Against the Government cases are under investigation in flood areas of
Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania. Cases involve alleged false statement to HUD and
alleged payoffs.
A special Grand Jur^- is investigating alleged police corruption in Philadelphia
at present time. Pennsylvania Crime Commission also having hearings re police
corruption.
SOUTH DAKOTA
Militant Indian groups on Pine P^idge and Rosebud reservations contend
favoritisni shown the non-Indian in criminal matters from the standpoint of
investigation and prosecution. They also contend pohtics controls law enforce-
ment within the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA).
TENNESSEE
In recent months there has been unfavorable publicity involving alleged irregu-
larities and misconduct on part of officers of Mem])his Police Department. A
number of different proposals have been made as to which branch of local govern-
ment should conduct investigation of police department. The latest development
is annoimcement by city council that a broad council-supervised investigation
will be conducted concerning Memphis Police Department. In addition, West
Tennessee Chapter of American Civil Liberties Union has also announced it will
conduct its own investigation of Memphis Police Department.
Of possible interest in criminal justice field is current controversy- regarding
vacancy on Tennessee Supreme Court. Following death on June 19, 1972, of one
of State Supreme Court Justices, Governor Winfield Dunn of Tennessee an-
nounced intention to aj^priint Thomas F. Turley, Jr., United States Attorney
for the Western District of Tennessee, to fill vacancy on State Supreme Court.
Robert L. Taylor, Jr., a ^Memphis attorney and former Appeals Court Judge,
taking ])osition that Tennessee constitution requires that this vacancy be filled
by voters, conducted a write-in campaign, receiving 3,301 votes to 555 received
by Turley, who declined to sponsor a write-in campaign. Following election,
Taylor announced intention to take seat on Supreme Court and a Chancellor
at Athens, Tennessee, administered the oath of office to him. Latest development
is deci-^ion by State Supreme Court restraining either Turley or Taylor from
filling this vacancy until matter settled by lower courts. Supreme Court suggested
that Governor in meantime appoint a temporary justice other than Taylor or
Turley. Governor Dunn has indicated he will make a temporarv appointment.
On July 22, 1972, Brushy Mountain State Prison at Petros, "Tennessee, was
ordered closed by Governor Winfield Dunn because of a wildcat strike by prison
guards. At the time, this was Tennessee's maximum security prison. All prisoners
were bused to the main prison at Nashville utilizing highway patrolmen as guards.
This action dealt a major economic blow to the town of Petros, and former
guards picketed the State Capitol for several days while the matter received state-
wide publicity. Subsequently, Governor Dunn has made statements that in time
Brushy Mountain Prison ma^- be reopened in some capacity.
73
TEXAS (SAN ANTONIO)
There are no problems of sufficient magnitude to be brought to the President's
or John Ehrlichman's attention in the criminal justice field. Of political signifi-
cance, hf)wever, there is some concern among some persons in the Chicano com-
munity whether or not the La Raza Unida Party should be formed. One side
feels that Chicanos should work within the present two-party system and not
for a third part3\
Senator Hart. Now, I am told that explanation has been made
that YOU, yourself, were not in Washington when this request came in,
or was made of the Bureau?
Mr. Gray. That is correct. Senator.
Senator Hart. But it Avas handled by an aide, Mr. Kinley?
\Ir. Gray. Yes; Mr. Kinley is sitting to my left. All he did was
route it over to the assistant director of the Crime Research Division.
Senator Hart. Who decided to send the reciuest out?
Mr. Gray. The assistant director of the Crime Research Division
in conjunction with his people. They told me, they reported to me
later on, you know — when I came back and found out about this and
things began to get a little hot arotmd there because of my unhappiness
with this — that they thought nothing of it at all.
It was a request that came from the WTiite House. It came to the
Deput}^ Attorney General, it came to us, and they handled it in the
regtilar manner.
Senator Hart. Until you returned and expressed your disapproval,
do I understand that no questions were raised by any of the officials
at the FBI about the Bureau being involved in this type of activity?
Mr. Gray. That is correct. Senator.
Senator, let me make one thing clear, if I may. I am giving you an
explanation of how this hai^pened but I am not ducking the
responsibility for what happened. I accept it. I am Acting Director
of the FBI and it is my resjionsibilit}'. Those errors are chargeable to
me and I am merely ex])laining in response to your cpiestion. I am not
ducking the res])onsibilit3^
Senator Hart. That reflects credit on the Naval Academy.
Mr. Gray. No, I just think
Senator Hart. A good captain's answer.
Mr. Gray. No; I am just thinking it reflects credit on America, sir.
Senator Hart. When did you find out about that?
Mr. Gray. It was a staff meeting on Tuesday, September 12;
5 p.m. on that afternoon. Mr. Ivinle}' and m}^ other yoimg staffers
came in and one of the things the^^ had to brief me on was this, and
I hit the overhead. That is when it all began to come ungiued there
as far as
Senator Hart. And at that time no one indicated to you that
there had been questions raised initiall}^ as to the propriety?
Mr. Gray. No, not at that time and not in the subsequent
investigation that I instituted, and in the memorandums that were
submitted to me, and the questions that I personalh" asked.
Senator Hart. All right. Now what, in fact, was involved in the
corrective action? As I understand it, the press did not report that
incident for several weeks after the correction had been made; am I
correct on that?
Mr. Gray. They didn't — mj^ recollection is that a report did not
come out about this foi quite a few weeks thereafter because, you
74
know, we didn't go around publicizing that I was steaming around
there raising a lot of cain and doing some things to make sure that
this kind of nonsense did not occur again.
Senator Hart. Wliat did you do to make sure that that kind of
nonsense did not happen?
ISIr. Gray. Well, one of the things I did — as a direct result of this,
and as a part of an overall management survey that I am continually
conducting, one of the surveys I mentioned earlier this morning in my
testimony — was that I wiped out the Crime Research Division, and
I transferred to nwself, to my office, my immediate office, Press
Relations and Congressional Relations.
Senator Hart. Did you discuss this incident at the time you first
learned of it, or subsequently, with anyone at tlie White House?
Mr. Gray. I did not.
Senator Hart, But you do feel that it is not an appropriate FBI
field of activity
Mr. Gray. It is improper. It should have gone to the U.S. attorney.
It had no business being sent to where it was sent: to the LEAA, or
Assistant Attorney General in charge of Criminal Division, or to the
FBI. It is one of those things that happen when papers are stacked up
in a basket and a guy wants to route them out in a hurry, and boom.
This one sat around for 7 days, sat around until almost the deadline
date for the report.
Senator Hart. My last topic bears on these dossiers. I believe that,
if not in j^our prepared testimony, at least in an exchange with Senator
Ervin, much of that ground has been covered. One thing, and I think
I indicated this to you when we were listing them before the hearing
Mr. Gray. Yes, sir; I remember.
Senator Hart. I would like to know — we are in agreement that the
maintenance of files, such as you discovered had been established and
were, in fact, in the Bureau without your knowledge for some time —
that the maintenance of that type of file is wrong?
Mr. Gray. Yes, sir; but that type of file only consisted of that
summar}^ memorandum, and we are talking about just one document —
that is all. I just want to make that real clear because it was only
one document derived from public source information, and from in-
formation in the FBI files at the field division level and at the FBI
headquarters level, so we are only talking about one document —
just one document, not a file. Every time a Senator or Congressman
writes to us about something — it may be legislation, it may be a
constituent problem, or it may be giving me the devil for something —
that goes in our files, you know, and we are not talking about that.
I am just talking about the summary memorandum that derived
from public source material and FBI files, Division files, and FBI
Headquarters files.
Senator Hart. You no longer maintain that file, that type file?
Mr. Gray. We do not develop any more of them, but we still have
those summary memorandums.
Senator Hart. That is my question. What do we do about those?
Mr. Gray. We still have the summary memorandums, and you
know, Senator, my first reaction was to burn ever}^ one of them, and
then I said to myself as we argued this, nobody will believe that I
burned them, or they ^\ill all want to stand there and read each one
as I burn them. Then I decided I could not do that anyhow because
75
that is contrary to the law. I have got to get permission from the
Archivist of the United States to destroy files. You have to go to the
Archives; and if you have a problem there, 3'ou have to go to GSA,
and it would be forever before I got these summar}- memorandums
destroyed. But if there were an eas}" way to destroy' these summary'
memorandums, I would do it because there is no need for them.
Senator Hart. The}' could be hurtful to a citizen?
Mr. Gray. They could if they got out in certain cases.
Senator Hart. Well, wouldn't the redtape and the difficult}' be
warranted as a means of insuring against that kind of hurt?
Air. Gray. Well, the Archi^dst is required to review material to be
destroyed, and I do not want people to read some of this rot that is
in those files, that is where the hurt comes in, and I am not going to,
as long as I am the guardian of those files, I am going to break my
back to protect those files because it is wrong to let some of that stuff
out. Somebody has got to read them. And once agam, you get the
question of who is gomg to do it. A lot of those
Senator Hart. How many such documents are we talking about?
Mr. Gray. I do not really know.
Senator Hart. We would have to know that before we made a
judgment about how difficult the destruction is going to be?
Mr. Gray. That is right. I do not realh' know, but we gave this a
lot of thought.
Senator Hart. Do I assume it would be too complicated?
Mr. Gray. Because we looked into what we would have to do going
through the cham, the writing of the letters, the justification, the
examination of the documents, j^ou know. I don't want anybod}'
examining those documents.
Senator Hart. We are all in agreement with that. We are trj^ing to
get rid of them.
Mr. Gray. That is right. That is right. If the United States
Senator Hart. You are the fellow who has them.
Mr. Gray (contmuing). If the Congress of the United States would
quickly enact a piece of legislation and sa}' that the Acting Director
of the Federal Bureau of Investigation is authorized to destroy these
summary memorandums, I would do it, and I will give 3'ou my word
I would do it.
Senator Hart. Mr. Chau"man, do you want to draft such a bill?
The Chairman. That is your job. [Laughter.] You are conducting
the investigation.
The Chair is going to be gone for about 10 minutes. Wlien you
finish, Senator Hart, we will hear from Senator Gurney and then
from Senator Kennedy.
Senator Hart (presiding). I will recognize Senator Gurney, but
before I do, since Mr. Kinle}' is here, is there an}- detail that you
would be in position to add, either with respect to the complication
in destroying the files or the decisions that were taken and discussions
that occurred in connection with the request for law and order speech
material?
Mr. Gray. Mr. Kinley reminds me that he has not been sworn,
Senator.
Senator Hart. I will make a bargain, if he will give us an answer
we won't swear him. [Laughter.]
76
Mr. Gray. David D. Kinley.
David Enley is my executive assistant. I neglected this morning
to introduce him.
TESTIMONY OF DAVID D. KINLEY, EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE
ACTING DIEECTOE OF THE FEDEEAL BUEEAU OF INVESTIGATION
Mr. Kinley. I have nothing to add to what Mr. Gray has stated
about the summary memorandums. I could only add a few brief
details about the episode surrounding the request for the criminal
justice information.
Senator Hart. Fine.
Mr. Kinley. The request, as we have since been able to recon-
struct it, came from the Wliite House and was sent to the Office of
the Deputy Attorney General, dated September 1. It had a deadhne
of September 7 for return of the information. As j-ou will see from the
copy of the niemorandum which was made available subsequently
by Mr. Ehiiichman, about the end of October, to the press, the
memorandum asked for criminal justice, or information on criminal
justice issues in about 14 States. The memorandum was forwarded
with a cover memorandum from the Office of the Deputy Attorney
General, requesting that the information be forwarded back to his
office as soon as possible because they were beyond the deadhne.
That memorandum reached my office on Friday, September 8,
late in the afternoon, and I immediatel}' routed it to the Office of the
Assistant Director in Charge of tlie then Crime Research Division.
On the afternoon of Monday, September 11, at 4:55 p.m., the
report came back, which we will also make available to the com-
mittee, of certain criminal justice issues in the 14 States that were of
interest to local law enforcement, and I approved that report and
forwarded it immediately to the Office of the Deputy Attorney
General.
The next da}^, or late that — I beheve it was late the next day,
Tuesdaj^, the 12th, another member of the staff brought to me a co]>y
of a teletype that had been sent to 21 field offices that quoted verbatim
the request from Mr. Ehrlichman's office and, at that point, Mr. Gray
had returned to the office, and that is when we went to the 5 o'clock
staff meeting on Tuesda}^ the 12th to report, to brief him on the entii'e
episode.
Senator Hart. I thank you for the information.
The Senator from Florida.
Senator Gurney. Thank 3'^ou, Mr. Chairman.
On that same point, had the White House inquired before, on pre-
vious occasions, for information about what is going on in the field in
the area of criminal activity?
]\Ir. Gray.Ycs, sir; I beheve they had because when I got into this
and began investigating it and reall}^ literally cross-examining some
of the i^eople involved, each of them told me that they saw nothing
unusual with tliis request, and they proceeded in the normal manner,
and they said to me the only thing the}" would have done differently
would have been to rephrase the language, instead of setting out the
White House memorandum verbatim in the FBI telet3^pe.
77
Senator Gurney. In other words, except for the particiihir time of
year, political activity was going on at that time, this would have been
a usual request of the FBI, and they would have answered in a usual
fashion as they did. Is that correct?
Mr. Gray. As far as the criminal justice items were concerned that
affected us in a given area, it would have been. The thing I took
umbrage at was reall}^ the full political context in wliich it was placed
b}^ sending that telet3^pe out with the White House memorandum in
there verbatim. If we had information in our field divisions regarding
criminal justice issues, which in fact we did, we merely had to ask for
it, you know. This is a service that has been provided.
Senator Gurney. Your anger was because a'ou did not want any
reflection on the FBI for participation in any political activity?
Mr. Gray. That is correct, sir.
Senator Gurney. A couple of items on this Segretti exchange of
information you discussed with Senator Hart. As I understand it, you
asked i\Ir. Dean, after the news articles appeared, if he had showed any
FBI memorandums to Mr. Segretti, and his answer was "No." Then
there were other questions about wlw you had not asked something
else.
My understanding of jour answer is that you posed the question
so, and the exchange between you and Mr. Dean was such, that had
there been any other facts and circumstances that Dean was aware
of regarding how the memorandum might have gotten into the lap of
Mr. Segretti, if in fact it had been shown to him. Dean would have
disclosed them. Is that right?
Mr. Gray. Certainly the facts and circumstances were such, be-
cause I was plenty irate over that telephone, Senator.
Senator Gurney. One other question on the Segretti business,
with regard to the investigation bv the FBI of any criminal activities
of Mr. Segretti, as opposed to his political activities. It is my under-
standing that the FBI onl}^ directed their investigation into any
possible criminal involvement in this Watergate business. As a matter
of fact, wouldn't it have been highh^ improper if the FBI had looked
into any so-called political activities? This is not within your orbit.
Mr. Gray. That is correct.
We would have been charged with doing something that was
certainly not within our jurisdiction to do, and this was one of the
reasons that after, even after I got the opinion from my own legal
counsel, I wanted to make sure I had another legal opinion that we
were right. I was always carrying in the back of ni}" mind from day 1
that this eventually had to become a celebrated case and the credi-
bility of the FBI as an institution was at stake, and this had to be as
perfect an investigation as we could make it. I did not want it tripped
up on any kind of technicalities.
Senator Gurney. One general question on the Watergate investi-
gation as such: Could you tell us how extensive it was, how many
agents were involved in this investigation and how long it took?
Mr. Gray. Yes, sir.
Senator Gurney. And, incidentall}^, I presume that the indictments
of the people who were indicted and tried were the result of evidence
uncovered by the FBI investigation. Is that true, at least partially?
91-331—73^
78
Mr. Gray. Yes, sir. It was our information that was being used by
the Assistant U.S. Attorneys conducting the grand jury which began
on the 23d of June 1972, 6 days after the offenses, alleged offenses at
the time were committed, and that was the date of the first witness
before the grand jury. But that was only a single witness, and then on
the 27th of June began the parade of witnesses as they marched by
with our evidence.
As far as the statistics are concerned, for the period June 17 to
December 31, 1972, field offices involved were 56, the legal attaches
involved were four, the leads covered were 2,670, the interviews
conducted were 2,321, the man-hours expended by agents were
21,658, by clerical personnel, 5,263, and this was performed by 343
agents.
Now we had an additional period of time involved in assisting the
U.S. attorneys, the assistant U.S. attorneys in trial preparation.
This is standard in our investigative work in order to fill in any holes
or to assist him as he goes along in his trial, in his preparation for
trial and in the trial, and the complete total as of January 31, 1973:
56 field offices were involved, four legal attaches' offices were involved,
2,698 leads were covered, 2,347 interviews were conducted, 22,403
agent man-hours were expended, 5,492 clerical hours expended.
Senator Gurnet. Is it fair to say that this was what would be
called a massive investigation? Would that be a fair way to put it?
Mr. Gray. Every experienced investigator in the Federal Bureau
of Investigation has told me, and I think that each of them would
testify under oath, that this investigation was conducted with the
full court press, it was a major special, it was conducted in accordance
■with the standard operating procedure of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, and that the Acting Director put no limitations or
restrictions upon these agents.
Senator Gurney. I do want to commend you on your initial
opening statement as well as your answers. I think they have been
as full, frank and candid as any witness before this committee since
I have been on it.
One other thing is a matter of local importance because it involved
severe criticism of the FBI at the time. You may recall the incident
of the Southern Airways airplane that cavorted around the United
States and Cuba, and even Canada, before its final stop landed in
Orlando, Fla., my hometown. There some of the plane's tires were
either shot or attempted to be shot, and it had to come to a belly
landing in Havana when it finally came down. The FBI was criticized
for this, and I do not really tliink the true story has ever come out.
Would you mind spending a few minutes describing that incident?
Mr. Gray. Senator Gurney, I would be happy to.
I was in Connecticut at my home Friday evening late when I
received the first telephone call of the hijacking from my command
center headquarters in Washington. I received several more telephone
calls throughout that evening. Those were all informative calls in
nature, requiring no decision on my part at that time.
Then, in the early morning hours, telephone calls picked up again
and through the day I stayed in contact going right on down into the
evening. In the evening the reports began to come in to the effect
that our personnel were in touch, as we are on this circuit, with the
airways ofl&cials. Southern Airways officials. We always are in touch
79
with the airline company, with the Federal Aviation Administration,
with our own command post, we are all linked there together and
also with the White House Situation Room.
But the information began to come in toward the end of the after-
noon that this thing was reaching a very severe stress situation, not
only from the standpoint of equipment, but from personnel fatigue,
and further that the oil condition in the engines was becoming rather
severe, and, in fact, the pilot himself, in landing at Key West, stated
over the circuit that he would have to have oil or the engines could
not continue to function.
Just shorth^ before S p.m., Southern Airways, with whom we were in
constant contact, stated that it was their recommendation that that
flight not be permitted to leave Orlando, that it would seriously
jeopardize the lives of all on board because of the conditions I have
previously enumerated.
I can recall after getting that call having about 20 minutes. I sat
down and wTote out the pros and cons. I knew what the risks were. I
knew that our people had earlier in the day at Knoxville practiced an
assault on a similar type aircraft on the ground because I knew that if
we disabled that aircraft we had to be prepared immediately to go in
and get the people.
We also knew, another factor, that these men who had hijacked the
aircraft wanted to go either to Africa or to Switzerland and were asking
for charts, and we knew that the aircraft could not go there.
So I made the decision at 8 o'clock, and I called my command
center and I told them to mark the time, it was 8 o'clock, "I am order-
ing that the tires be shot out of this aircraft." This was the recom-
mended— a recommended — procedure, one that had been checked into
with the FAA, checked with airlines, and all said, "'Shoot the tires
out, and you disable the aircraft." There are other ways, we could have
sprayed CO2 into the engines, but these particular hijackers were
awfully jumpy and would make that pilot take off even if the\^ saw
people out on the ends of the runways there, anywhere near it; they
were very jumpy and would let no one approach that plane.
The pilot was not a free agent. There was no way in the world of
getting to him. Wlien my special agent in charge, leading the special
agents, got under the aircraft while it was immobile and stationary at
Orlando, went to the fuel truck that was over there, parked some 50
feet away from the aircraft, in fact, aft of the starboard beam of the
aircraft, to see if there were any headphones he could plug in to tell the
pilot, there were no headphones, and he came back and began to shoot
out the tires. They did shoot them out.
The aircraft, as they were startmg to put their fingers on the button
to open the doors to assault the aircraft, that plane took off at full
throttle and went down the runway. Now no one thought that plane
would ever get off the ground. Apparently, in hindsight, it was loaded
lightly enough so that it generated its own air cushion and was able
to get off the ground.
Smce then — well, durmg the immediate period followmg that,
when I took the full responsibility which, of course, is mine — I had
a call from a United Airlmes pilot who said to me, ''You are taking a
lot of heat, but if I am ever in the same situation, come and get
me."
80
I got a letter from a passenger on the plane Avho related that,
prior to the shooting out of the tires, the attitude of the hijackers
had been dictatorial, domineering, arrogant. After the shooting out
of the tires, all they wanted to do was land the airplane and get back
to Cuba where they previously had been and had decided Cuba
was not for them, and 3^et they knew they had to get on the ground
and their attitude changed completely, this passenger said.
I just rode up yesterday — on Monda}^ — came back from Florida
with a National Airlines captain Avho, when we ended the flight,
came back to talk to me, to sa}^, "I know you have gotten a lot of
heat on the Southern Airways situation but if I am in that situation,
come and get me. You have my confidence."
This is a rough sequence of the events. Senator Gurney. These
were the reasons wh}' we did what we did. We were trained to do it.
We had taken every possible step to ready ourselves to do this.
In fact, our training program with the airlines companies has been
extensive. We have ^^•orked ver}^, very closely with aircraft crews
and we have helped to train them as to how to react to this type of
situation.
Senator Gurxey. I appreciate that. I asked the cpiestion because
I think a lot of people got the idea the tires were shot out after the
plane was in the air and airborne.
Mt. Gray. No, sir, it was stationary — not mobile at all.
Senator Gurney. I do not have any other questions, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Hart. Senator Kennedy.
Senator Kennedy. Mr. Gray, I apologize for not being here earlier
this morning. I was necessarily absent. I missed your opening state-
ment and some of the questions.
Of the questions I have, some have been covered. I would like
to yield, Mr. Chairman, and reserve my right to come back either
this afternoon, or the first thing in the morning.
I want to welcome you here and congratulate 3'ou.
Mr. Gray. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Hart. Senator Thurmond.
Senator Thurmond. Thank 3^ou very much.
Mr. Gray, I wish to congratulate you upon having been nominated'
as Director of the FBI. I have been looking into 3'our record in the
various points that have been alleged against you, and it gives me-
pleasure to sa}^ I intend wholeheartedl}'^ to support you. I have been
impressed not onl}^ with j^our education, a graduate of the U.S.
Naval Academy — one of the finest educational institutions in the
country — graduate of law with honors at George Washington Univer-
sit}^, but I also have been impressed with your administrative ex-
perience. I believe 3^ou served as military assistant to the Chairman
of Joint Chiefs of Stafl^, did you not?
Mr. Gray. Yes, sir.
Senator Thurmond. I believe you served as special assistant to
the Secretar}^ of Defense?
Mr. Gray. Yes, sir; I did.
Senator Thurmond. I believe after that 3^ou practiced law for 8
years in Connecticut?
Mr. Gray. Yes, sir; I practiced from January
Senator Thurmond. And jou served as executive assistant to the
Secretary of HEW?
Mr. Gray. Yes, sir.
81
Senator Thurmond. Special consultant to the President's Cabinet
Committee on Education?
Mr. Gray. Yes, sir.
Senator Thurmond. And Assistant Attorney General.
I have made inquiry about your reputation and your record and
I have received only good reports.
I think throughout that })eriod of time if there would have been
anything against you it would have come forward. You served in
so many capacities here with the Government, somebod}^ would
have come forward with something against your character or reputa-
tion if you were not above reproach, which I think, of course, you
should be. Public office is a public trust and you have onl}^ the people
to serve, that is your duty.
I might say that I was impressed with the interview jon had in
Nation's Business when the Ciuestion was asked what you would do
if politicians reached for the reins of power with the FBI. I believe
you made this statement and I want to ask you if that is correct.
"I would resist them ^^'ith every bit of ability I have. I may have
to sit down face to face for a full discussion with any politicians who
may seek to run the FBI."
Did you make that statement?
Mr. Gray. I did, sir.
Senator Thurmond. Have you stood by that statement?
Mr. Gray. Yes, sir.
Senator Thurmond. Do you intend to stand b,y it in the future?
Mr. Grey. I do. '
Senator Thurmond. Have you allowed anv politics to enter into
the FBI?
Mr. Gray. No, sir.
Senator Thurmond. Do you intend to keep politics out of the FBI?
Mr. Gray. I do, ^Senator.
Senator Thurmond. Do you intend to perform your duties in a
nonpartisan manner without regard to party so far as investigative
powers of the FBI go and the other performance of your duties while
Director?
Mr. Gray. Yes, sir. As I said this morning in my opening statement,
if I find I cannot do that I will resign and go back to my beloved law
firm in southeastern Connecticut.
Senator Thurmond. I was impressed with another statement that
you made, and I want to ask a^ou if you made this statement in the
words that I have it quoted here:
"The liberties the founders of this countrj^ fought so hard to attain
are too precious to alloAv them to be lost in this time of turmoil. The
challenge will be met. I know that the people of our Nation have the
courage and dedication to face this challenge and resolve to continue
to develop and enhance the greatest form of government ever devised
by the mind of men."
Are those your words?
Mr. Gray. They sound like mme from one of my speeches. I can't
really remember it, Senator, but they sound like my words.
Senator Thurmond. I believe the}' appeared in the Congressional
Record.
Mr. Gray. From my speech?
82
Senator Thurmond. A staff member excerpted it from the Con-
gressional Kecord.
Mr. Gray. It sounds like
Senator Thurmond. Do 3^ou approve of those words?
Mr. Gray. Oh, I do indeed. [Laughter. 1
Senator Thurmond. Now, I want to ask you about this: I don't
know what will be attempted to be brought out about you but unless
something comes out that I can't foresee I intend to give you my full
support because I think 3'ou are an honest man, I think j^ou are a man
of character, a man of integrity, you are a man of ability and dedica-
tion and I think you are the type of man we need in government.
I would like to ask you if 3'ou have done anything in connection with
the Watergate affair to hamper the investigation, to try to obscure any
facts and information from coming to light, or have you done every-
thing 3^ou could to disclose the facts as thev have come to the attention
of the FBI?
Mr. Gray. I would say. Senator Thurmond, we have done every-
thing that we could possibly do, and we have given it the, as I have
said time and again, the full court investigation of the FBI, conducted
it in the standard manner of FBI investigations, treated it as a major
special, and I think my senior investigators, if called here to testify,
would state that the Acting Director put no restrictions or limitations
upon this investigation.
Senator Thurmond. Are you willing to make your records available
to the chairman of this committee for his perusal and inspection in
connection with the Watergate investigation or any other matter
with which you have dealt since you have been Acting Director of the
FBI?
Mr. Gray. Yes, sir, I am, and, if I ma^^, Senator Thurmond, I
would just like to say a few more words on just this point that you are
raising.
We, of course, are a part of the Department of Justice. This Com-
mittee on the Judiciary is the committee that has cognizance of the
Department of Justice, and if we in the FBI have any committee of
Congress
Senator Thurmond. Speak a little bit louder.
Mr. Gray. If we in the FBI have any committee of Congress to
which we should report, it is this committee. I would be very happy
to work with this committee. I do not have any hangups about giving
information to U.S. Senators. I believe that they are fairminded
men, that they are decent men, that they are honorable men, they
have the country's best interests at heart. For too long has the FBI
been criticized for not having an oversight committee, yet, Mr.
Hoover made every effort to inform the Congress, and I will make ad-
ditional efforts, and I look to this committee as the committee that
should look at the FBI. I would intend to work with this committee,
as I have alread}' done, and ^^dth the House Judiciary Committee,
and in working particularly ^^^th Congressman Edwards' Subcom-
mittee No. 4, I think it is, with regard to identification problems,
national crime information center problems, computerized criminal
history problems, we have met with them, we have brought them to
the identification division, and we are opening for their information,
judgment, and decision the information that they feel they need.
83
We don't realh^ — we feel perhaps we have a committee here in the
Senate Appropriations Committee but that affects only dollars. They
get into a lot of other things, too, but we have to have some com-
mitte here in the IJ.S. Senate that we can look to as being our com-
mittee, and as we have thought about this what committee is more
natural than the Committee on the Judiciary.
Some people have said to me, "Why don't you go up to the Senate
and ask for a joint House-Senate committee, an oversight committee
of the type that you have for the CIA," and I have said, "I think
that our committee is Judiciary but that is not a decision for me to
make. That is a decision for the U.S. Senate to make."
I wanted to give you my personal views, Senator Thurmond, on the
cpiestion that you raised.
Senator Thurmond. You stated you are willhig to turn over any
records in connection with the W^atergate investigation.
Are you also willing to make available to this committee any of the
FBI agents who worked upon this investigation if the committee so
desires to call them as a witness or to receive any information from
them?
Mr. Gray. Yes, sir.
Senator Thurmond. Have you by deed or act done anything to in
any way stifle or discourage the Watergate investigation?
Mr. Gray. ]\'o, sir; quite to the contrary. Even in the first week, on
Saturday morning, June 24, I called in all of those agents from tlie
Washington fiekl office, including the assistant special agent in
charge and the special agent in charge, and lectured them rather
severely about the leaks and then once again exhorted them to give
this the full measure of their investigative ability, go at it with no
holds barred and investigate to the hilt.
Senator Thurmond. Would you, as Director of the FBI, feel that
it is your duty to get at the truth in any investigation, not just the
Watergate but an}^ investigation, that comes before the FBI regardless
of who it helps or who it hurts?
Mr. Gray. Yes, sir. That is my duty.
Senator Thurmond. That is all, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Gray.
Mr. Gray. Thank you, Senator Thurmond.
Senator Hart. Senator Bayh.
Senator Bayh. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gray.
Mr. Gray. Yes, sir.
Senator Bayh. I appreciate this chance to visit with 3^ou formally,
although frankly not as much as I did in visiting with you informally
the other day.
Mr. Gray. Thank you, Senator Bayh.
Senator Bayh. Having the duty to sit in one of the seats with my
colleagues and explore with some great degree of particularity the
cjualifications of those who come before us, there have been some
things in the past which frankly I did not relish and I have to say
there are a lot of things I would rather be doing than sitting here and
interrogating you, sir. I have been impressed every time I have had
a chance to meet you; first, in your post down at Justice.
84
111 the visit we had the other day in my office, I was impressed with
your openness and with your frankness and your honesty. In our
personal conversation the other day, I expressed, and I will express
it here, the concern I have for the FBI. It is important in our
system of jurisprudence that its impartiality be protected and main-
tained, and its credibility and that of its agents as well as of its
Director be as nearly as possible bej^ond dispute. I expressed that
concern to you.
Mr. Gray. Yes, sir.
Senator Bayh. And I think you concurred in it.
Mr. Gray. Yes, sir, I do.
Senator Bayh. The questions that I want to direct to you will
be directed with this in mind.
I think I frankly said to you ^vithout at all intending: any personal
rebuke or admonishment tliat I would have much preferred to have
had someone come before us who was a professional law-enforcement
officer, one who did not have your political background.
Mr. Gray. I agreed with you in your ha\dng to ask those tough
questions.
Senator Bayh. The appearance of impartiality and propriety is
oftentimes almost as important as impartiality and projiriety them-
selves in establishing and maintaining public confidence. That is wlw I
think some of these questions need to be asked. They have been asked
b}' others, they have been raised elsewhere.
I ask these questions for two reasons: One, to get the facts on the
record, if thej^^ have not alread}" been given, and second, and perhaps
even more important, to lay to rest some of the concern which has
been raised by these questions and perhaps thus to enhance your
credibility and your capability to serve if you are given confirmation
by the Senate.
In this context I would like to direct your attention to some aspects
of your political background.
t believe that a political background is admirable, I have been
involved in one for 18 years, but perhaps not for the FBI. Is it pos-
sible that some of the things that you have done, advertently or
inadvertently, while you have been the Acting Director, might have
political consequences which would raise doubts about your assess-
ment of how you make the judgment, that you and I agree needs to
be made, to keep the FBI out of the political cauldron?
The speeches that have been discussed here a bit are a matter of
some particular concern. Let me just throw at you some of these
quotes directly from 3'our speeches and give you a chance to comment
on them, give your thoughts further or say you don't think it is
appropriate or whatever you like.
In Spokane
Mr. Gray. Spokane, Wash.?
Senator Bayh. On August 7. You came out strongly advocating
the elimination of the exclusionary rule as to legally seized evidence
at a time when this case involving this particular question was before
the Supreme Court, in the case of California v. Crivda. Now. is that
kind of a position, the Dhector being an advocate in a sensitive area
in the judiciary process, is that a wise procedure, do you feel?
Mr. Gray. 1 feel in that particular case, and not knowing that the
California decision was pending, that this ^^•as not a wise thing for
85
me to say and it was certainly something that I would not have done
had I known that that decision was pending. Indeed, as a matter of
fact, even as Assistant Attorney General in the Civil Division, the
young lawyers down there will tell you, I felt that the abolition of the
exclusionary rule was really not a thing to be done, and I worked at
it very hard with the task force and was gradually convinced that
it had merit. But my initial opposition to it was very strong and I
set up a task force of young lawyers down there in the Civil Division
to really go into that exclusionary rule.
Senator Bayh. As the Assistant Attornej^ General, ^^-ouldn't you
have had the oj^portunity to know about the progress of this par-
ticular issue through the courts? Unless you had been fairly well
advised that
Mr. Gray. Let me say to you, Senator Baj-^h, I didn't — it is my
fault.
Senator Bayh. I am not arguing the merits of the rule, you
understand.
Mr. Gray. No; it is my fault for not knowing that that case was
pending. I was open to be shot at, and I have been shot at.
Senator Bayh. Is it fair to suggest — we can't do anything about
what happened yesterday and, as I told you, and as I still feel, I have
not made up my mind, I think you are a right guy and I am trj'ing
to determine what weight to give these aspects that I direct your
attention to, but if you are confirmed, I hope we can put a record
together that might avoid some of the pitfalls that some of us are
concerned about.
Is it fair to say that in the future you would take greater care in
avoiding this kind of statement whicli might be interpreted by some
as affecting the outcome of a High Court case?
Mr. Gray. Certainly, I am going to do that, and certainly I am
not going to be speaking as much as I have been speaking in the
months that have passed. But, as I stated in my opening statement
this morning, there was a very good reason for that, because I felt
that the windows and the doors had to be opened and w'e had to begin
talking more w'ith people; but I don't anticipate it is going to be
necessary for me to make as man}^ speeches as I made. There are
some 41 of them, I guess, between May and the time, November 19,
when I was hospitalized. I made those for a very good reason, to try
to bring to the people the FBI as it really was, and, quite frankly, I
felt the dedicated men and women of the FBI had been maligned too
long, and a part of it was due to us, as I said in my opening statement
this morning.
Senator Bayh. I thought your opening statement was a very force-
ful statement, and indeed let me say, frankly, if your speeches in the
field had been confined to the duties of the FBI and the importance
of fighting crime, the tools you might need to do so, I would not be
concerned. But wdien I read, from a Butte, ^lont., speech, on Sep-
tember 7, the following quotation: "There are those who claim that
national priorities are distorted away from the individual," and then
you go on to say that, "There have been annual increases in Feder^al
outlays for supporting, developing human resources. In the current
fiscal year, 45 percent of the Federal budget is for human resources
and only 32 percent for national defense, but calamity howlers who
86
say the little man is forgotten, do not talk about it," that really does
not sound like a law enforcement speech. That sounds like the Direc-
tor of the Ofhce of Management and Budget preparing a press release
for the President.
]\Ir. Gray. No, I would have to respectfully disagree with the dis-
tinguished Senator from Indiana. Because that might be tied in again
with my very strong belief in our country'-. I have felt very keenly
that too long have scorn and ashes been heaped on the head of America,
and for once I had a forum, if somebody would listen, forme at least to
talk for America, and the thrust of these speeches, Senator Bayh, is
for America. I think you have got to read these in the full context,
not just pick out facts that I am using to demonstrate that America
has not slid so far downhill.
As I said this morning, I believe in this great and good land of ours
and the good peoi)le \\"ho have made it the land that it is. So it really
isn't fair, I submit to you, Senator Baj^i, to pick these quotations out
because my intent ^^■as to portray America, not to carry the country
for Richard Nixon. I have got to persuade people to believe that.
That is my task, and if I fail, the Senate will not advise and consent ;
it is that simple.
Senator Bayh. Did you ever hear of a political speech that was not
pro- American?
Mr. Gray. We can turn that question around, and we are plotting
to get on that line. I told you I was not making political speeches,
and I mean it.
Senator Bayh. These speeches were not just made at an American
Legion hall or a high school graduation or a bar association meeting.
They were made in close proximit}' to a national election in which
one of the ke}' issues involved was priorities, whether we are spending
too much money on defense and not enough money on domestic prob-
lems. Now, A'ou were avrare that this was one of the kc}' issues joined
in this election?
Mr. Gray. Yes, no question about it.
Senator Bayh. And here your statement was right on target.
Mr. Gray. That was one of the statements in that speech that was
right on that target. I will say that you can draw that conclusion, as
I said this morning, but I also said this morning, Senator Bayh, that
there was no intent to make a political speech, no intent to write a
]3olitical speech, and I don't think that anybody who ever heard me
speak thought I was making a i)olitical speech.
Senator Bayh. Well, i)erhaps it is possible that the first part of that
statement is accurate, and yet the latter part is not.
We had a good deal of discussion this morning about this Cleveland
City club speech. We have to take into consideration not only A'our
whole speech but the whole political campaign that was going on,
Mr. Gray. That is correct.
Senator Bayh. You are aware that one of the major strategies of
the administration was to send out high surrogates to carry the Presi-
dent's message?
«Mr. Gray. I am aware of that, 3'es, but I was not a high surrogate.
Nobody designated me one, and I was not self-anointed. Senator
Bayh, believe me.
wSenator Bayh. Well, I am \\illing to accept your assessment that
you were not a high surrogate, but when I read parts of your Cleveland
87
speech — and I would like, Mr. Chairman, to put it all in the record
so that anybody who reads this will not take it out of context.
Senator Hart. Without objection.
(The address referred to appears on page 23.)
Senator Bayh. "In our countr}^ todaj*, there are strident voices
proclaiming that the same conditions exist in our land. We are told
that America is *sick' and that law is used to repress freedom."
Run down the same page: "We are on the threshold of the greatest
growth pattern in our history — growth in the qualit}" of life for all
our citizens — growth in our total effort to eradicate the imperfections
in human society."
Then it goes on: "more employment, more medicines, more tech-
nology, more material accomplishments." It is a ver}' strong assess-
ment of our strength, and then \\hen I compare the phraseology there
with the phraseology of the President's acceptance speech, which I
would also ask to be put in the record, the tone is almost identical,
and that is wh}' I question the feeling that you had that this was
purely patriotism. Here the President sa^s: "It has become fashionable
in recent years to point out what is wrong with what is called the
American system. The critics contend it is so unfair, so corrupt, so
unjust we should tear it down and set up something else in its place. We
have more freedom, more opi)ortunity, more prosperity than any
people in the world. For the first time in 5 years" — and there is even
the reference to crime ^\'hich you point out in the back part of your
speech in Cleveland — "This is the first time we have only had 1-per-
cent increase in crime."
With 3 our being there as the head of the FBI, in an election year,
reciting those statistics, which you thought were nonpolitical, I think
probably to a lot of your audience they had a very strong political
ring.
Mr. Gray. Well
Senator Bayh. Even if ^'ou didn't intend for them to do it.
Mr. Gray. Well, Senator, you have jour belief, and 1 have mine.
I didn't have that belief, and I still don't have that belief.
Senator Bayh. Did you forward am- of these speeches to the
White House, or anything like that?
Mr. Gray. No, sir. I wrote a lot of these speeches myself, and the
men who do the speechwriting in the Federal Bureau of Investiga-
tion— at least who did it — would say that we worked over everj^ one
of them very, very carefulh', and usually — in the last analysis — the
final draft was mme.
Senator Bayh. You were concerned enough, and I salute 3'ou for
this. As 1 recall this morning, you told one of those who preceded me
that you checked this out and that agents in the field, or somebody
who did the checkmg, came back with a feeling this was not a political
forum and there would be no political ramifications or something?
Mr. Gray. That is right. 1 have ahvays been concerned— you
know, it has alwaj^s been perfectly obvious to me — that from the
date the President and I met on Alay 3 at the Wliite House, I am
going to get tagged with this. You know, 1 have got some smarts —
maj^be not a lot — but I can read that message very clear.
Senator Bayh. I think you have a lot, and I think maybe
Mr. Gray. So 1 have got to govern mvself accordinglv if 1 want to
88
continue to serve in this position with these dedicated men and
women and work with the two great pohtical parties in America. 1 am
not a partisan guy and never have been. 1 ahnost became a Democrat
when I left the Navy in 1960, because my whole family are Demo-
crats. I even went to see Chester Bowles as to whether I would serve
Richard Nixon or John Kennedy, so I am not a partisan guy, and
this is a part of my credibility, my reputation for truth.
Senator Bayh. But you did check out the City Club to see there
would be no political ramifications?
Mr. Gray. Yes, we did.
Senator Bayh. Who did the checking for you, Mr. Gray?
Mr. Gray. 1 asked my Crime Research Division to look at the
record, and 1 found out that, in the record since 1968, that the club
had been trymg to get the Dnector to go there and talk, and that the
recommendation of the staff of the FBI was that it would be a good
forum for us to carry the FBI message.
Senator Bayh. In making your deter)nination of the political im-
pact or lack of political impact that 3"ou would have in this forum,
were you advised by those who had checked it out, and thus did you
have the information that the Democratic presidential candidate^
Senator McGovern, also appeared in that forum?
Mr. Gray. No; I did not have that information. I was not concerned
about it.
Senator Bayh. Were you apprised that Sargent Shriver M'as to fol-
low you the week following in that same forum?
Mr, Gray. You see I didn't look at it, Senator Bayh.
Senator Bayh. You see that is what concerns me. You have two
gu3's on the other side and you have Pat Gray giving a good old-
fashioned American anticrime speech and arriving in a White House
jet and you may have been just as innocent as the driven snow, and
I am willing to take you at face value, but that certainly would give
the impression to the peojile at the Cit\' Club 3'ou were carrying a mes-
sage from the President of the United States.
Mr. Gray. No; I don't think so. Senator Bayh. I put in the record
this morning a memorandum that was written by the Crime Research
Division people regarding this because I wanted to know. I wanted
to know — I was not tr^dng to carr}' the i)olitical cudgels for anj^one —
and I said this morning when I came into this position, I viewed it as a
return to the service of my country, and I still do and I always will so
long as I am privileged to serve in this position.
The Chairman (presiding). We will recess now; there is a rollcall
vote.
About how much longer do a^ou have?
Senator Bayh. About 10 or 15 minutes.
The Chairman. We will come back.
(Short recess.)
The Chairman. Proceed.
Senator Bayh. Mr. Graj?-, let me ask one last question about the
speeches in relation to the campaign.
Mr. Gray. Yes, sir.
Senator Bayh. You ])oiiit out that the FBI Director had been in-
vited since 1968, which would assume that if the invitation was
turned down a month or two before the election it probably w^ould have
been forthcoming for 1972.
89
Now in looking to the future, is it fair to suggest that a reasonable
man, who happens to be the FBI Director, given the intensit}- of the
campaign, given the fact that the White House had by specific request
asked for an appearance because they thought it would be pohtically
valuable, might find that sufficient to warrant a future FBI Director
to conclude that maybe that is one that he had better pass up in the
years ahead?
Mr. Gray. Senator, what you say is correct and certainly has merit,
but that Wliite House memo went to 20-some-odd other people, and
I didn't attach an}^ weight to that. I didn't go up there because of the
Wliite House memo. I accepted the speech in earl}' June, and I went
out there because this was a very prominent club, and, as I said this
morning, in the memorandums that I am going to insert in the record,
you will find that this says this was a liberal group, and I want to
talk to people.
I said this morning in my speech that I believe in personal dialog,
and I believe this was a good forum to take the FBI's message and
try to talk about the FBI and try to let the people see the Acting
Director of the FBI.
But I agree with you certainly that I don't expect that I am going
to be speaking anywhere near as much in the future because I have
opened a Avindow, I have carried the message to the American people
regarding the FBI.
Senator Bayh. I don't want to pursue this further, but I would like
to put in the record a memorandum from ]\Ir. Patrick O'Donnell to
the Honorable Patrick Gray. Now, he may have sent it to 25 or 30
other people, but this one is only earmarked to you, and it makes a
rather strong pitch about the ])restigious meeting place, and points
out that both Secretaries Hodgson and Sliultz as well as Ambassador
Bush have been there and Jim Lynn is quite familiar with the club.
I just hope in the future that perhaps when this White House, which
is said to be the ultimate in political acumen, assesses a speech to be of
political value to them, maybe someone who is not involved in politics,
the FBI, will take their word for it and sa}^, "No thanks, I will do that
next year."
Mr. Gray. Well, sir, when I got the memorandum. Senator Bayh,
I checked — that is why I got the other memorandum that we are
going to put in the record from my own Crime Research Division —
just to make certain I was not getting m3^self into a situation where
I could be really convicted of engaging in a political act. I know I am
being accused and it is right to accuse me, and I don't differ with that
because you have to bear this responsibility and I accept that. But I
don't think in the future you have to be gravely concerned,
because in the future I am not going to make as many speeches.
Senator Bayh. I am not trying to convict anybody, but I feel that
under the cu'ciimstances it was just not a good place to go. To suggest
that it was a liberal forum, I supjiose if I were supporting the President
as a conservative, I would be looking for liberal votes, so that does not
make a very good rebuttal.
Mr. Gray. Well, that is true. I don't match with you in the political
area. I don't have that much expertise.
Senator Bayh. We are trying to be out of a political area. I just
want to lay that out so if the time comes again to make that decision,
you might say, "I remember."
90
i\fr. Gray. I get the message.
Senator Bayh. I am not suggesting that you take my view as
being
Mr. Gray. I think your point is well taken, and I am trying to
give you my reactions to it, but your point is well taken,
vSenator Bayh. I appreciate that.
Let me deal with one last area here.
]\rr. Chairman, I have a number of cpiestions, but I think because
the hour is late, I would rather pass after I get through this one area.
The Chairman. You told me 10 minutes. [Laughter.]
Senator Bayh. That is just about what I have, ^Ir. Chairman,
10 minutes.
I am concerned, Mr. Gray, about your interpretation of the role
of the FBI Director as far as to whom you are ultimately responsible.
It is sort of a strange breed of cat, isn't it, where you are responsible
to the whole country, to the Commander-in-Chief, to the Congress,
to each individual citizen.
Mr. Gray. It is a tough job.
Senator Bayh. Yes, it surely is.
You have been described, accurately, I suppose, and I think it is a
virtue, as being a strong team player, a loyal team man. I have here a
speech that you made at HEW which really told those assistants
down there the great responsibility they had to be loyal to the Presi-
dent. Of course, circumstances have changed now. I think being a
strong team player is a valuable asset when you are an Assistant to
the Secretary or when you are an Assistant Attorney General.
Now, I would like to get your judgment as to who you feel is the
captain of the team as far as the Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation is concerned, to whom does loyalty flow from the FBI
Director?
j\[r. Gray. That is a tough question.
First, we are a creature of the Congress, and the Congress has seen
fit to place us in the executive branch. The head of the executive
branch is the President of the United States. We are also the investi-
gative arm of the Department of Justice. We report to the Depart-
ment of Justice. We are to follow the mandate, the dictates, and the
rules and the regulations of the Department of Justice. Then, in the
last analysis, the individual has his own conscience, and, as I said this
morning, if at any time these conflict so that I cannot pursue my
duties in an ethical manner in accordance with the Constitution and
the statutes of the United States enacted by the Congress, I will
resign and go back to my beloved law firm.
I "would iike to add I am looking for a cop3^ of that speech I made
at HEW. I did make it, but I want to point out the last paragraph
of that speech in which I say, "We are the servants of the American
people."
I would like to make special note of that for the record, that the
last paragraph tells there whom I believe we are servmg, the last
paragraph of that speech.
Senator Bayh. Shall we put the whole speech in?
Mr. Gray. I would hke to put in the whole thing.
Senator Bayh. I was using it as part of the aspect
91
Mr. Gray. No, the wliole tiling is going to come back, let's put
it in. Let the whole thing hang out.
(Mr. Gray subsequently submitted the following document for the
record :)
Address by L. Patrick Gray III, Executive Assistant to the Secretary,
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, to All Appointees in
THE Department at the Deputy Assistant Secretary Level and Below,
July 25, 1969
I am going to talk to you a])out some lessons learned in the first six months'
The approach will be practical, but threaded throughout will be the lofty ideal-^
and the great concerns we have as we join together in HEW to serve the President?
the Secretary and the people of our Nation.
At the risk of being tagged here and now as an over 30, "turned off" reactionary,
let me emphasize to you the importance of the concept that we are here to serve,
not to be served — that we are here to serve, not to enhance our own perfectly
normal, human selfish interests. This may be out of tune with some of the thinking
surrounding us today.
Each of us is possessed of our own desires, ambitions and goals. This is normal.
This is commendable. At the same time, when we embark upon a career in the
service of our government, whether that career is to be short term or long term,
we must be quite willing to subjugate our own personal goals to a deep, personal
commitment to serve our President, our Secretary, and our Nation.
This commitment must be our homing beacon throughout our career in the
service of our government.
Each one of us is here in HEW because Richard Nixon was elected to the high
office of President of the United States. Further we are here because Secretary
Finch has seen fit to place trust and confidence in us and to approve our selection
to fill a position in HEW.
In short we owe our positions to the capability of the President to come ofi
the mat, so to speak, and drive through hard, vigorous years of campaigning to
win the nomination of the Republican Party, and then go on to win the Presidency
of the United States with the valiant help of hundreds of thousands of dedicated,
hardworking supporters, campaign workers, and contributors.
So also are we here because Secretary Finch has seen fit to ask us to serve with
him and to help him move this Department forward as he and the President seek
the solutions to the people problems which, if not solved, might well rupture and
destroy the society which the people of our Nation have created.
Obviously, we are a chosen few, an elite group — make no mistake about it —
there are thousands of Repubhcans who are knocking at the door and who would
be pleased to be in our positions.
Appreciate this hard fact of life. Appreciate the fact that every single member
of the opposite poHtical party is working hard day and night to ensure that the
President of the United States is hampered and harassed in carrying out his pro-
grams and that the President of the United States is not reelected to serve a
second term.
This is a real hard political fact of life. This is in keeping with the nature of
our politicial system. Without such a system, one party government could pro-
duce a totalitarian state. We accept tliis fact of life; so does the opposing part3^
Accordingly, do not retch or quiver wlien we insist that the preponderant majority
of our colleagues — political ai)i:)ointees — be members of our own party.
Again it is plainly obvious that we must be dedicated and devoted to the con-
cept that our Republican President will be a great President, that his programs
will be successful, and that he will be reelected to a second term.
Above all other qualities of character that we hold near and dear, we must have
deep, abiding, sincere lo3'alty to our President and to our Secretary.
Earlier I placed great emphasis on service. Now I want to drive home hard the
emphasis on loijaltij. I do not speak of blind, automatic loyalty. I speak of a sincere,
an intelligent, a freeh^ made decision to join President Nixon and Secretary Finch
because we believe in them, trust them, understand the goals and objectives they
hold, and desire to support them with the deepest sense of dedication and total
commitment.
Should there be anyone of you here present today who cannot make this com-
mitment, 3'ou must — in order to maintain j^our own dignity, self-respect, and
integrity — examine deeply j-our own hearts and minds and reach a decision — to
serve or not to serve.
92
Do not today understand me to be saj'ing that each of you is to consider your-
self as a fanatic, blind, unreasoning, partisan Republican of the brand often cari-
catured by Herb Block and others who are determined that an enlightened, hu-
man, understanding Republican President shall not succeed.
No, I am saj-ing that you are here because jow have made a profound commit-
ment to support with total dedication the President of the United States; that you
have made this commitment intelligently because you wish to join with him in
bringing this country together again; that j^ou have made this commitment in-
telligently because you wish to join with Secretary Finch in assisting him to per-
form the tough tasks which lie ahead — tasks which must be performed well in
order that the President may accomplish his objective.
Our Nation has elected a Republican President. We have a Republican Adminis-
tration. We have Republican approaches to the problems of our people. We have
the knowledge of the President's goals. We have the common sense to know the
desires and objectives of the President and the Secretary — we must have the
loN'altj', the courage, and the commitment to do their will — -not our will. This
means, plainly and simply, that we get on the track with the President and the
Secretary and that we stay there and track with them.
You may say, "I am not political" — "I am an Independent" — "I do not care
what party is involved, I vote for the man" — "Politics is a dirty business," and
so on. From the vantage point of my ancient age, let me assure you that no Ameri-
can can afford to ignore politics, to ignore the machinery of government, to adopt
an attitude of "Let George do it." This attitude is guaranteed to ensure the demise
of the two party sj'stem — our form of democracy. No American can afford to
avoid involvement, particularly in today's world, when the thing to do is to be-
come involved, to participate, to take a position.
Now let's go on to other lessons learned:
LoA-alty includes also a dedication to your immediate superior and to those who
work with you in our cause, on our team.
Loyalty includes an avoidance of criticism of our leaders and of our colleagues.
Criticism which is destructive in nature is cancerous — it will destroy us and our
entire team. Snide remarks and facetious comments lightly made often come back
to haunt us. Too often have I heard this form of banter engaged in innocently.
Too often have I seen the results published in newspapers or made the subject of
remarks by the boob-tube word mashers.
Loj^alty includes having the common sense and decency to deal with others in a
manner calculated to bring credit to the President and the Secretary. We are the
President's people — we are the Secretary's team — and when we speak, we speak
for the Secretary but w^e do not speak as the Secretary. We do not wear the
Secretary's mantle. Therefore, while we speak from strength, we do not speak with
arrogance. Courtesy is the key. Our errors here become the Secretary's errors and
place him in a very delicate" position. Instead of strengthening him, we weaken
him.
Loyalty includes the touching of all required bases as we set out on our daily
rounds to carry out the will of the Secretary. We deal directly and candidly.
We deal with "those who ought to know and who have a responsibility to the
Secretar.y, too. In short, we do not "end around."
I believe that I may have placed the concept of service and loyalty in the proper
perspective and I want to go now to a few more pitfalls and prattfalls that can
harm us, the President, and the Secretary.
Not one problem that we handle in HEW is simple. This is the lot of a Depart-
ment responsible for the problems of people at the national level. Accordingly, not
one task assigned to vou is of a nature such that you can give it the so-called
"Hght touch." You have to shred the problem; look at it from every angle; learn
to work in depth; learn to dig hard; learn to turn in a work product that is as
thorough, as logical, and as clear as you can make it. You should be concerned
with the overview, the big policy, the grand decision. But you also are in a training
period, a development period — ^we all are. Do the tasks assigned well and you will
find that your personal job satisfaction is enhanced and your responsibilities are
increased. Above all do not seek out only the so-called "glamour work"; put your
shoulder to the wheel and be eager to tackle the "nitty gritty" chores, too.
The President and the Secretary appreciate another hard fact of Ufe. Simply
stated it is that intelligent members of an ehte group — our team — will generate a
wide diversity of views and rather strong opinions regarding the highly charged
issues facing our Nation today. This is great and we do not want to stifle the minds
and stagnate the thought processes of the members of our team. At the same time.
93
and although we beUeve in and foster the thorough airing of our views and opin-
ions within our own family, we must present a united front in support of a decision
once made by the President or the Secretary. Our support must be total and ab-
solute.
In conversations with others, we do not refer to RHF as "Bob." He is the
Secretary to all within the Department and to outsiders. Be extremely careful at
all times to maintain the dignity of his office, but do it with warmth and humility —
not with arrogance. We have enough problems in HEW now without creating
more by being inept or overbearing.
Even though each of us is close to the Secretary, resist at all times the tempta-
tion to enhance our own image by "puffing," or by our actions demonstrating
how close we are to the Secretar3^ We would not be here if we were not close to the
Secretary and those with whom we will come in contact know this political fact of
life. You will demean yourself and the Office of the Secretary by taking "name
dropping" advantage of your position.
Lobbyists — You will come in contact with them; they have a legitimate reason
for existing. Be a courteous listener, but a niost careful talker. Make no commit-
ments whatsoever in the name of the Secretary: Moreover, do not even talk in
such a manner to "lead on" a lobbyist — you trap yourself in a very difficult
situation and you can hurt RHF badlj^ by this sort of conduct. Again, be a cour-
teous and attentive listener, but a most careful talker.
Telephone Conversations — The telephone is obviously an invaluable communi-
cation tool, but do not say in a telephone conversation that which you would not
care to see in print tlie next day. Once again the concept is that of tact, courtesj',
patience, understanding, care and concern — but no commitments in the naine of
the Secretary, and no "puffing."
Mail — The principles I have spoken of thus far apply as well to all mail leaving
the Department. When preparing correspondence for the Secretary's signature,
or when reviewing it, never treat it lightly, no matter how simple the subject.
The reasons are obvious — ;every letter portrays the image of our office and of the
Department; further every letter reflects the substance of our positions and
policies.
Security — Recent examples should be sufficient to impress upon each of us
the critical importance of the general securitj' of our office and our official, as well
as unofficial, papers. Every Department of government is loaded with prying
eyes — eyes that are prjang for one reason or another. Be assured that none of
this prjdng has as its objective the enhancement of the Nixon Administration or
the enhancement of our Department. We deal with critical issues of great impor-
tance to many diverse groups in our land. Be mindful of security at all times;
above all leave a clean desk when you leave for the day and be certain that critical
papers are under lock.
The effective functioning of any group is related to the degree of cohesiveness
and common purpose which has been established and accepted throughout the
group.
Let's look to see if we have the ingredients in our make-up to generate that
sense of cohesiveness and common purpose.
Why are we here?
A. Because we believe in President Nixon and Secretary Finch.
B. Because we are dedicated to them and their work.
C. Because we ask only to serve; not to be served.
D. Because we have no greed for personal aggrandizement.
E. Because we feel a deep sense of personal pride, honor and hxiroility in being
asked to serve.
How do we operate?
First, we will operate as the Secretary desires us to operate.
Second, our mission is to do just as much for the Secretary as we can to remove
from his shoulders unnecessary burdens.
Third, we do our work in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the
Secretary.
Fourth, we are staff assistants to the Secretary — not decision makers or policy
makers, even though we may well have a strong input to him prior to the moment
decisions are made and policies established. Once made, we support them to the
hilt!
Fifth, we operate in such a way as to reflect credit upon the Secretary for
choosing us to occupy the important positions to which he has appointed each
of us.
91-331—73 7
94
Sixth, we do not throw around the weight of the Secretary's Office. We are
courteous and considerate in all of our dealings with the people in the Depart-
ment, yet we are not to be hoodwinked or misled into presenting slanted infor-
mation to the Secretary.
I believe that each of us can agree that we have the ingredients required to
function effectively in behalf of the President and the Secretary.
Our objective — to assist, to the fullest extent, the Secretary in his objective to
make this the best Department in the Nixon Administration; to establish this
Department as a Department on the move, a Department composed of
compassionate and understanding people who are determined to generate and
manage plans and programs designed to enrich the lives of all Americans ; to make
this Department so attractive and so meaningful in its work that members of
the civil service, and others not now in government, will be eager to join HEW and
assist the Secretary to achieve his objectives. Imaginative, creative, dedicated, and
competent people form the heart and flesh, the bone, sinew and muscle of any
organization whether it be the corner grocery store, or a niajor Department of
the Government of the United States. We must have them and we must work
with them in such a manner that they can realize their full potential in the best
interests of the people of the United States.
Senator Bayh. Moving to the question which I asked, as you
pointed out it is a tough question, but it is the ultimate question.
Mr. Gray. It is indeed and that is the way I answered it this
morning in my statement. I have said this, and I made that state-
ment during the Watergate to my people, if anybody puts any heat
or pressure on me I am going to resign and go back to southeastern
Connecticut. The guys in the FBI know that.
Senator Bayh. I think j'ou are honest and you mean that and you
will do 3^our best to accomplish that.
Now, may I ask one or Uvo more questions, because I think you
realize that was a very nebulous answer that really didn't get down
to the
Mr. Gray. No, I mil answer it specifically.
By statute I am responsible to the Attorney General. This is what
the Congress has said. He is mj" boss.
Senator Bayh. Let me ask a couple of specifics in light of the
fact that two recent Attorneys General have also been the campaign
manager for their President, Robert Kennedy and John Mitchell,
which puts a difficult situation in a different light.
If I may ask you to, just very quickly, hit that Ehrlichman memo
again that went out to the field. The response I thought I heard you
give to Senator Gurney's question was that this was just sort of a pro
forma thing, just sort of a standard operating procedure, that it
happened all the time. Did I hear you answer that to the affirmative?
It seemed contrary to everything you said before.
Mr. Gray. What I was answering there with Senator Gurney was
the fact that none of these people thought there was anything irregular
about this because of the fact that these kinds of requests do come to
us, from the White House, through the Deputy Attorney General's
office, or through the Attorney General's office.
Senator Bayh. If you look at the Ehrlichman memo, that prima
facie is almost like you were asking that local FBI agent to be the
local campaign manager, to pick out the sensitive spots so we can
avoid them, to pick out the kej^ crime-related events that are
occurring in the area that the President might want to attend. I
don't think that is — or is that the normal procedure?
Mr. Gray. No, that is not what was asked really. All this involved
was reporting back what are the criminal justice issues in your area.
Senator Bayh. Well, I suppose
95
Mr. Gray. I said earlier, Senator Bayh, that this thing was wrong,
it was improper, and John Ehrlichman has said this. What more can
I say in response
Senator Bayh. I just thought I misunderstood you, I am glad I
didn't misunderstand you.
Mr. Gray. No, but we get a lot of these tA^pes of requests. The
thing that was lacking here was the judgment by my people who said
this was another request from the White House, another request that
has come from the Deputy Attorne}^ General.
Senator Bayh. You said none of your assistants objected to it?
Mr. Gray. No, they didn't.
Senator Bayh. Did Mr. Bishop have to say anything plus or minus
about it?
Mr. Gray. No, and I talked to him personally.
Senator Bayh. I read some place that when you were at Quantico
at the FBI Academj' there, this question came up and you were
quoted as saying, "Wouldn't j'ou do that for the President." Is that
an inaccurate quote?
Mr. Gray. It is totally and completeh' and terribl}' and blatantly
false.
Senator Bayh. I am glad I asked the question so you could laj^
that to rest.
Mr. Gray. Yes, sir.
Senator Bayh. Now, here is
Mr. Gray. I think that appeared in Time magazine, didn't it?
Senator Bayh. 1 don't know.
Mr. Gray. Yes, that was in the writeup in Time magazine, I think
in the Januar}^ 15 issue.
Senator Bayh. You answered it so I am not going to pursue it.
The serious question, the blockbuster I asked a minute ago, really
the test you are going to have to face in my estimation, is to whom
you must belong.
First to yourself and to your conscience, but what official? You
have refused to buck certain memos on to people with reference to
the Watergate and this kind of thing.
Mr. Gray. That was June 19.
Senator Bayh. But apparently you feel there are limits beyond
which you as Du-ector are not responsible to the Attorney General?
Mr. Gray. Are?
Senator Bayh. Are not responsible.
In other words, there are some things ^'^ou just don't have to give
to the Attorney General?
Mr. Gray. No, I don't feel that way at all because the Attorney
General and I had previously agreed in this case that there would be
an aggressively pursued investigation and we would hold it closely in
the initial phases and that will be in the documents that I have
introduced into the record today, sir. I was not operating on my own
and I won't. You know I have had some conflict over this. As a matter
of fact, when I was Assistant Attorney General I almost resigned
because, you know, it came awful close to conscience butting up to
what I was told to do and you jolly well have to face up to this sort
of thing.
Senator Bayh. Wliat if you are asked by the Attorney General
or by Mr, Haldeman, by a WTiite House staff official very close to
96
the President, for a field investigation, an FBI check, of a nationally
known newspaper columnist or a nationally known television col-
umnist, either one of which may have just made very critical remarks
about the President of the United States?
Mr. Gray. I would say, "Mr. President, there is no jurisdiction,
and we have no right to conduct any such investigation unless there
is jurisdiction."
From May 3, the first day I talked to the men of the FBI, 1
have emphasized that we will not proceed beyond the perimeters
of our jurisdiction and I have even required them to submit to me
the reason for an investigation; and state therein where doth our
jurisdiction lie.
Senator Bayh. If it is for a Federal job application, we had this
one unfortunately where a television commentator was being
investigated for
Mr. Gray. I don't know the facts on that but if the request came
over to me and it was official, and on its face correct, and stated that
"XYZ is being considered for appomtment to the position, will you
please conduct a background investigation," I probably would go
ahead and do it.
Senator Bayh. You would say the same thing about your concern
for candidates or Members of Congress?
jVIr. Gray. 1 don't know what the same thing is, Senator.
Senator Bayh. If you were asked for a field check?
Mr. Gray. If I were ordered to conduct an applicant investi-
gation— I see what you mean, if I were ordered to conduct a field
check
Senator Bayh. In other words, you have a hot campaign and
somebody wants to get something on somebody else, you would
say no.
Mr. Gray. No. I would say no. No jurisdiction.
Senator Bayh. That is all, Mr. Chairman. I reserve my questions.
I don't w^ant to monopolize the time.
The Chairman. Marlow.
Senator Cook. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gray, 1 am fast reading tlirough the Cleveland speech and I
am finding it very diflScult to find political consequences, I must
confess to you. As a matter of fact, if we start taking paragraphs
out of context in relation to then full meaning on freedom under law
and the right of a trial by jury, then I would hope that we don't
go so far as that the liberal-minded would deny the freedom of the
podium to the individuals in this country.
There is something that I really would like to discuss with you.
Senator Bayh. Will the Senator yield? May I say that the whole
speech is in the record and I am sure that he did not intend to infer
I was taking the speech out of context.
The Chairman. The whole speech was put in the record this
morning.
Senator Cook. I merely made the point to the Senator. He quoted a
small part of it. For the benefit of the press, I would love to — if I had
the time — read the whole speech, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. It is in the record.
Senator Cook. I must say to you I doubt very seriously that there is
anybody sitting back at those tables there who will read the whole
97
speech simply because it is in the record. I don't want to do them an
injustice, but I doubt seriously that they would do that.
Mr. Gray, on our list of people requesting to testify, appears the
name of Mr. Jack Anderson, and also the name of Mr. Les Whitten,
who is an associate of Mr. Anderson. Now, I would like for you to dis-
cuss the actions of your Department in regard to the altercation with
Mr. Wliitten in, I tliink, January, and also the great hue and cry — if it
be true, b}^ the way, 3^our entire organization should be condemned —
that his first amenclment rights were violated ; whether Mr. Whitten
Avas indeed involved in, and was in the possession of, documents that
were stolen from the Bureau of Indian Affairs and, to the best of your
abilit3^ to put into this record whether the suggestion of a search war-
rant originated with your shop, or Avith the U.S. attorney's oihce, be-
cause I would like to know whether 3rour Department is shadow boxing
with the first amendment, or whether it isn't.
Mr. Gray. Yes, sir.
This case arose as a result of the theft of documents from the Bureau
of Indian Affairs. We had been directed by the Department of Justice
to look into this matter, to conduct an investigation, and, indeed, we
began such an investigation. Also, this particular column was printing
excerpts from various of these documents, as I recall, stating, in fact,
that this column had access to these documents, and was going to print
these documents.
So we did endeavor to track down these documents in many areas,
in many parts of the country. It was again one of these investigations
that was going from the office of origin to many other field offices
through the nature of leads, and it is true that we did have an inform-
ant in this case, who was a member of the Metropolitan Police
Department, and it is true that the Metropolitan Police Department
advised us that this informant had information to the effect that these
documents were in a certain location in North Carolina, that these
documents wxre initially going to be dehvered at North Carolina to
representatives of this column for a sum of money, and then later we
were informed that the documents were going to be shipped to Wash-
ington and would come in through a bus — a commercial bus — and
that the documents were going to be picked up at the bus station.
(Mr. Gray subsequently submitted the follo\ving document:)
Mr. Gray. Upon checking the records, I have learned that information received
from the informant was to the effect that he was to pick up the files in Pembroke,
North Carolina, in his automobile, and transport them back to Washington, D.C.,
for transfer to Jack Anderson. Anita Collins was to accompany him on this trip,
and this trip was to occur within a few days after January 23, 1973.
Senator Cook. As a matter of fact, they really came from South
Dakota, did the}' not?
Mr. Gray. I don't realh^ know that, Senator Cook. I couldn't
respond to that. I don't know that much detail, but I will provide a
response for the record.
(Mr. Gray subsecpiently submitted the following document:)
Mr. Gray. Upon reviewing our records, I found that they came from Rosebud,
South Dakota.
Senator Cook. All right.
Mr. Gray. We were also informed that when the informant and a
woman, Anita Collins, went to the bus station to pick up these docu-
ments the informant asked, "What do we do if the police apprehend
98
us," and lie was told, "We say we are returning these to the Govern-
ment."
They picked up the documents. They returned them to Hank
Adams' home or his place of residence at the time which I believe was a
Holiday Inn. That area, of course, was under surveillance and our
agents were watching it.
(Mr. Gray subsequently submitted the following document:)
Mr. Gray. Upon checking the records, I have learned that Hank Adams did not
live at the Holiday Inn at the time the documents were delivered to him, but
rather across the street from the HoUday Inn.
We also had information that that evening or the following day,
the transfer for money was to be made, and when an individual showed
up we waited until these documents were brought out of the house
and the people actually had them in their possession before we moved
in to make the arrest, so that it was in our judgment a valid arrest.
We had been in contact with the Department of Justice attorneys
who had been apprised of the facts. The arrest was authorized by
the assistant U.S. attorney. That basically takes it right up to the
arrest position.
Senator Cook. It is my understanding that it is Mr. Wliitten's
contention that he was in the process of returning, which seems rather
strange that one would pick them up, two people would pick them
up, at a bus station and deliver them to someone's room so that some-
one else could bring them back to the BIA or somebody else the next
day.
Mr. Gray. We had no information to that effect from the informant,
and we have checked with everyone at the Bureau of Indian Affairs
that we could check with, and not one of them said that they had
any such appointment with Air. Adams. But we also know from our
investigation that much mil be made of the fact that a week or 10
days or so prior to that, Mr. Adams had said to a Bureau of Indian
Affairs official, Mr. Oxendine, just in passing ^\'ith regard to the return
of the documents, "Maybe they will be returned, maybe they won't.
I don't know," Something to that effect, I know. No commitment
was made and Mr. Oxendine was asked bj'^ our investigators poiat
blank whether or not any commitment had been made to return any
documents and his testimony or his statement to our interviewer
was "no."
Senator Cook. Was Mr. Wliitten apprehended by your asenta
with, these documents in his possession?
Mr. Gray. He was actually standing A\ith the box containing the
documents in his hands and the seats in his automobile were placed
in a down position indicating, certainly at least to us, they were going
to be placed in that automobile. One box was on the ground ri^ht
there beside Mr. Whitten.
Senator Cook. My understanding is it constituted some 150 pounds
of Avhat, 2,000 pounds of documents, that apparently they surmised
were removed from the Bureau, is that correct?
Mr. Gray. That is correct. Senator.
Senator Cook. Let me ask you one of the problems that puzzles
me. Was it at the request of 3^our Department or was it at the request
of the U.S. attorne_y that apparently you proceeded further and by
reason of subpena to acquire the telephone records of Mr. Anderson?
99
Mr. Gray. No. This was, actually, an action initiatied by the
assistant U.S. attorney in charge of the Federal grand jury, and these
subpenas were prepared in his office and were executed, I believe,
by the assistant clerk of the grand jury. The time frame was picked
out and there was no attempt made to inquire into anyone's sources,
])ut attempts were made to locate the documents that still remained
out of the hands of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Of the toll calls,
96 were selected as the most probable because of their location.
This is the reason for them. We didn't just go through all the toll
records and call everybody and check everybody. That was not the
])ur])ose at all.
Senator Cook. Well, let me ask you the hard question. If it really
wasn't the purpose wlw was it necessary to subpena records way
prior to the actual Indian takeover of the BIA buildings because
that occurred on November 3. It is my understanding that the
grand jury, through the U.S. attorney, requested through the sub-
pena that the records be acquired for some 60 days or even longer,
6 months.
Mr. Gray. Six months, sir.
Senator Cook. Six months prior to that time. Wby was that neces-
sary?
Mr. Gray. I don't know what the assistant U.S. attorney's inten-
tions might have been there. I can surmise that he may have been
looking for any calls that would indicate a prior concert of action or
arrangement to participate in this kind of tiling in return for some-
thing. I don't know. This is a complete surmise on my part, but
suffice it to say when the toll calls were obtained we onh^ looked at
those following the event itself in order to locate the papers. We
were not looking for something that happened before.
Senator Cook, Has any action been taken on any records, on any
facilities in regard to either Mr. Anderson or Mr. Whitten, his asso-
ciate, since the 2d day of or the 15th day of February, when the grand
jury returned a no bill?
Mr. Gray. Has any action been taken?
Senator Cook. By your Department.
Air. Gray. Against them?
Senator Cook. No; have any activities in regard to any records
that you may have had, have you — are you continuing this or have
you — because of the no biU return, have you discontinued that, or
are you pursuing it?
Mr. Gray. No, sir; it has stopped; the grand jury has spoken.
Senator Cook. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. We will recess now
Senator Byrd. Mr. Chairman, until when will you recess?
The Chairman. 10:30 tomorrow mornmg.
Senator Byrd. Could we not pursue this for a little while? I have
waited all day patiently and I have only a few questions. I may not
be able to be here tomorrow.
Thank you.
Mr. Gray, I want to commend you on the statement which you
made earher today.
Mr. Gray'. Thank ^''ou, Senator Bj^rd.
100
Senator Byrd. This nomination, Mr. Gray, troubles me in view of
the fact that it is the first time that the Senate will have had an
opportunity to pass on the confirmation of an FBI Director. We have
been saying a lot around here about the Senate's constitutional
powers, and its proper place in the system of checks and balances,
and so on, so I think that the Senate ought to approach its prerog-
ative in this instance with a great deal of diligence. I have been
concerned with respect to your apparent political activities over a
long period of time. If this were a nomination to a Cabinet office, it
wouldn't trouble me at all in that regard, because I would expect the
President to name people to Cabinet offices who have been active
politically in his behalf.
But in view of the fact that this is the directorship of the FBI, it
does concern me because I fear that the FBI could, under a politically
oriented Director, become the political arm of the White House —
whether it be a Democrat in the White House or a Republican in the
White House. I think this would be a danger to the protection of the
constitutional liberties of all of our people. I think the politicization
of the FBI could — I am not saying it would happen at all — but it
could be the first step toward the conversion of the FBI into a sort of
American Gestapo.
Now, you have assured the committee that you will not be active
politically in the future. Of course, Mr. Nixon will probably not be
active in the future, either. He has indicated that he has run his last
time, and he has 4 years in which to serve, but I think that the com-
mittee and the Senate ought to be very, very careful about confirming
a nominee whose background has involved a great many partisan
political activities of service to his party. Of course, I think we could
avoid this risk, with all due respect to you personally. I have certainly
nothing against you personally; I think you are a very charming man;
I have no question as to your honesty, your character, your integrity.
But I think the Senate could avoid this risk entirely if it insisted that
the President send up a nomination of someone who had not been
politicall}^ active to the extent that I am led to understand that you
have been.
Now, I have no secret files. All the information I have has been
gleaned from press accounts which are available to the public, and I
don't consider it my role to try to persuade any other Senator to
interpret press accounts as I interpret them. I have not approached
any other Senator with the idea of tr^dng to persuade him to vote
against your confumation. I don't presently intend to.
Mr. Gray. Thank you, sir.
Senator Byrd. But I have to weigh the facts as I see them and as I
understand them, and reach m}'' conclusion, and that is as far as I now
think my role goes in this instance.
It has been said that you have been very active in behalf of the Re-
publican Party for several years. Would you explain that?
Mr. Gray. Yes, sir, I would be happy to put my activity on the
record here.
On July 1, 2, 3 or 4, after June 30, 1960, I left the Pentagon for
room 361, Senate Office Building, and served on the staff of the then
Vice President, Richard Nixon, and my first assignment was to work
with analysts regardingjmail. Every assignment I received thereafter
101
was logistical in nature — go out and find space, put together a group
of lawyers to answer mail, find volunteers, rent the basement of the
wSolar Building, and that type of thing.
Then, of course, I returned to Connecticut in early January of 1961,
and the first ]5olitical operation that I can recall was Mobilization of
Republican Enterj^rise, which was a thing that Congressman Bob
Ellsworth was heading up to bring together Repubhcans at the grass-
roots— -precinct worker type people — -ready to go out and ring door-
bells. Everybody Avas given a portfolio or a kit and told to go out and
do these kinds of things.
I did nothing with the kit. The kit I destroyed last year when I was
cleaning up.
From May to June — the middle of June 1962 — I served with
Angelo Santaniello to try to help get the gubernatorial nomination for
Peter Mariani, an electrical contractor, from southeastern Con-
necticut. For roughly 45 days, I did the in-house work, and wrote
Pete's speeches, and rode around with him to round up some delegates
who would vote for Pete at the Republican State Convention to get
the gubernatorial nomination of the Republican Party.
From June to November of 1962, I served as finance chairman of
the New London Republican Town Committee. In checking the
records back there, they can't even remember me in the Committee
of One Hundred, but I know the Republicans set up a Committee of
One Hundred and I know that I was assigned to the campaign opera-
tions subcommittee chaired by Joe Burns, vice president and general
counsel of Fuller Brush. Even Joe didn't remember that I served on it.
But I know I served on it. I know I attended one meeting near the
Wilbur Cross Parkway in Hamden, at a place called the Carriage Inn,
in 1966.
Also in 1966, Bill Cottison, an advance man for former Vice Presi-
dent Nixon, came to New London and introduced himself, and said he
was there to advance Mr. Nixon's appearance on behalf of Joe Gold-
berg. I referred him to the Republican town chairman and let him
work with her to make regular arrangements he had to make.
In 1968, I met with Mr. Nixon in New York in his office in January,
spoke with liim, and just talked about 20 minutes in general terms,
and told him that I hoped that he was going to run for the Presi-
dency. Later in 1968, I wTote a letter for the candidate's signature on
the Small Business Investment Company industry, settmg forth liis
position in response to questions that that industry had asked him. I
was asked to do so because at that time I was a member of the board
of governors of the National Association of Small Business Invest-
ment Companies. I was not asked to participate in the campaign in
1968, and I did not. I stayed right in my law office and practiced law
and wrote this letter.
And then I served — in fact, I didn't think I was going to get into
Government. I didn't think I was going to be invited to join the
Nixon administration. The newspaper publisher in my town, a fellow
named Barnard Colby, of the New London Day, got a letter from
Harry Flemmg to recommend people for Government, and he said,
*T sent 3'our name in, Pat."
I got one of the forms back ; I filled the bloody form out, and sent it
back in.
102
In the meantime, I had been trjang to get in touch with Bob Finch
in Sacramento to say, "I really want a place in this administration to
help in the transition." It wasn't until January 12, 1969, that a meet-
ing was finally arranged for me and Bob Finch in the Plaza Hotel in
New York on a Sunday morning at breakfast, and he said, "I would
like you to come to HEW with me," and that is the way I came to
HEW.
May I say. Senator, if I am such a big friend of the President and
such a partisan politician, how come I am outside looking in and trying
real hard to get in? That is the situation I was in.
In 1970, after leaving HEW, I attended one meeting of the
Republican State platform committee, and I was assigned to the
education subcommittee. I attended one hearing in Hartford. I
could not attend any more because at the same time I was embarked
upon a program in the South trying to assist in making the transition
from the dual to the unitary school system as a special consultant to
the Cabinet Committee on Education.
In 1970, in the Robert H. Steele for Congress campaign in
Connecticut, I agreed to meet Counselor Finch at the airport, took
him to a testimonial dinner in Norwich — actually it was not Norwich,
it was outside of Norwich, at a boys' school, and served as a toast-
master at dinner that evening — and in 1970, I visited Tom Meskill's
staff during the transition on what to do about personnel, how to
handle personnel.
Then in 1971, I gave $250 to the Republican Party in Connecticut
and became what is called a keyman in Connecticut. It is another
gimmick to raise money. You know, if you give 250 bucks, you get a
keyman card, and that is the extent of it.
Senator Byrd, I wouldn't want my remarks to be taken in any
way, if you please, sir, to be in any sense of the word a backing off from
the thought that I left the U.S. Navy to help Richard Nixon be elected
President. I am a Nixon supporter; I admire and I respect and I
have an affection for the President. I have for every President.
Senator Byrd. Well, Mr. Gra}^ I have a considerable amount of
respect for him, too.
You indicated earlier today you "have never been a partisan
guy."
Mr. Chairman, has anyone made reference to the statement by Mr.
Gray when he was at HEW when he was speaking to appointees in
the Department?
Mr. Gray. Yes, they have, sir, and we put that in the record.
Senator Byrd. The statement has been put in the record?
Mr. Gray. Yes, sir.
Senator Byrd. Very well. Were smy excerpts read from it?
Mr. Gray. Yes, sir.
Senator Byrd. It sounded very partisan, did it not?
Mr. Gray. Yes, sir. I think, as I said to Senator Bayh, I think you
also have got to read the last paragraph. Wli at I was trying to do was really
point out how important it is to come into Government service and
to serve well and not seek personal aggrandizement, and I pointed out
very carefully that each party recognizes this. There was no knifing or
cutting in that speech. You know, when I think in terms of
partisanship, I think in terms of knifing and cutting and hammering
at people, and I was not doing that. Maybe that is not the way to
think about partisanship.
103
Senator Byrd. I do not necessarily think that, Mr. Gray; I just
think you made a pretty partisan speech.
Mr/ Gray. Right.
Senator Byrd. As a Democrat, I could make that same speech and
feel that I was whooping it up for my party.
Mr. Gray. You see, I have not served in political life, Senator
Byrd, as long as you have, and that is why I came out of the Navy
with perhaps an idealism, and I see that same idealism in political
leaders, and you know, to be a political leader is not really a bad
thing because the political leaders make the democratic process work.
I do not see what is so bad about being a political leader and trying
to do right and to do well when you happen to hold a public position
of trust and confidence, and that is what I — when you read that
speech, that is what I was trying to tell those young people over there,
the facts of life.
Senator Byrd. I wish more people felt that way about political
leaders, Mr. Gray.
Mr. Gray. Well, thc}^ should feel that way because we ask an awful
lot of our political leaders, and we kick them around plenty, too.
Senator Byrd. But I find — I will not belabor the point since the
statement is going in the record — but I find it a little hard to reconcile
what I consider to be a pretty partisan speech in the context of where
you were then making it and, in the time frame, it is a little hard to
reconcile that with a statement that you never have been a partisan
guy.
i am only concerned about the partisanship now as we approach the
confirmation of this nomination.
Mr. Gra}^, earlier reference was made to the O'Donnell memo
urging that you go to Cleveland. I believe you stated that 3-0U ques-
tioned the propriety of this memo?
Mr. Gray. I did.
Senator Byrd. Whom did you ask about it?
Mr. Gray. I asked our Cnme Research Division to look into this
and tell me if it was a political thing. If it was, I was not going, and
that is exactly what T said.
Senator Byrd. When did you accept it?
Mr. Gray. In June, early June. Mid-June, mid-June somewhere
around the 16th of June, in that time frame, 16, 17, 18. We will
provide the acceptance letter for the record.
Senator Byrd. And you indicated you had received a request
directly from the Cleveland City Club speech
Mr. Gray. Yes. sir; you will have this in the record, too.
Senator Byrd. What was the date of that request?
Mr. Gray. It was in that vicinity, but I will have to put that in
the record. We will have to put it in the record, sir.
(Mr. Gray subsequently submitted the following documents for the
record :)
In checking our records, I find that the initial invitation from the Cleveland
City Club was contained in the June 13, 1972, memorandum from Mr. O'Donnell.
Our files did show that the Cleveland City Club had previously requested the
appearance of Director Hoover in 1968 and again in 1970. Mr. Hoover had not
been able to accept either commitment, but it had been recommended to him that
an FBI official appear before this group, if agreeable with them. I submit for the
record pertinent correspondence from our files covering these points.
104
The White House
Washington, D.C., June IS, 1972.
Memorandum for: Hon. L. Patrick Gray.
Prom: Patrick E. O'Donnell.
Subject: Freedom's Forum— The City Club, Cleveland, Ohio.
The City Club has asked our assistance in attempting to secure your participa-
tion as a key speaker sometime during the period following July 1, 1972. Since
its founding fifty j'ears ago, Cleveland's Citj^ Club has been a focus and one of
the bulwarks of freedom of speech in one of America's great cities. The Club
maintains a deep interest in affairs of government, economics and politics, both
national and international. It offers a prestigious meeting place for the open
discussion of important social, political and economic problems.
They meet ever.y Friday at noon and have a 300 maximum attendance. However,
if you were inclined, they could "go public" and provide almost a crowd of any
size you might desire. Both Secretaries Hodgson and Shultz have recently ad-
dressed the Club and just recently Ambassador Bush delivered a well-received
speech.
With Ohio being crucially vital to our hopes in November, we would hope you
will assign this forum some priority in planning your schedule. In the event you
are interested, I have full background material available. Incidentally, Under
Secretary of Commerce Jim Lynn is quite familiar with the Club. Many thanks.
June 16, 1972.
To: Mr. Bishop.
From: M. A. Jones.
Subject: The City Club, Cleveland, Ohio, request for appearance of Acting
Director Gray.
A memorandum dated June 13, 1972, from Mr. Patrick E. O'Donnell, advised
Mr. Gray that his assistance had been requested to secure Mr. Gray's participa-
tion as a key speaker before The City Club of Cleveland, Ohio, sometime after
July 1, 1972. He pointed out that the Club meets Friday at noon, and although
they have a maximum attendance of 300, they could "go public" if Mr. Gray
were so inclined. He commented that Secretary Hodgson and Shultz recently
addressed the Club as w^ell as Ambassador Bush. The Club offers a prestigious
meeting place for the open discussion of important social, political, and economic
problems.
The Cleveland Office has advised that The City Club has no pohtical connec-
tions and actually the majority of the members could be classified as "Hberals."
The Club engages in discussing controversial subjects and it is entirely possible
that some embarrassing questions could be put to Mr. Gray which might prove
embarrassing to him and the Bureau. They also noted that these meetings are
carried live on local radio stations.
Although Cleveland points out that this Club discusses controversial subjects,
it is beheved that it might be advantageous for Mr. Gray to appear before such
a group. As indicated, the Club is dominated by liberals and these are the type
of people we should be contacting in an effort to "convert them."
Recommendation: Mr. Gray may desire to accept this invitation and, if so, he
should indicate some Friday after July 1st when he could appear. (Due to other
commitments, it would appear that a JFridaj'^ in August or early Fall might be the
most convenient.) Thereafter, additional details will be obtained from Mr.
O'Donnell.
June 27, 1972.
To: Mr. Felt.
From: T. E. Bishop.
Subject: The City Club, Cleveland, Ohio, Request for Appearance of Acting
Director Gray, August 11, 1972.
In a memorandum from Jones to Bishop dated 6/16/72, there was set forth
details concerning an invitation extended to Mr. Gray by The City Club of
Cleveland, Ohio, for him to be a key speaker at a Friday noon meeting of the
Club sometime after July 1, 1972. It was recommended and approved that Mr.
Gray accept the invitation if possible. Mr. Gray noted, "I will do it but push it
out ahead. Check with Mrs. Neenan."
After consulting with Mrs. Neenan, on 6/26/72 Bishop advised Patrick E,
O'Donnell of The White House, through whom the invitation had been extended,
• 105
that Mr. Gray could make this appearance on August 11, 1972. O'DonneU stated
that he would check with Lawrence Robinson, Executive Director of The City-
Club of Cleveland (telephone — area code 216, 861-1260), to ascertain if this
date is satisfactory and advise Bishop of the result on 6/27/72.
On 6/27/72, Mr. O'DonneU advised Bishop that Mr. Robinson had informed
him that the Club would be delighted to have Mr. Gray speak to it at its noon
meeting on Friday, August 11, 1972. He advised that Mr. Robinson stated that
he would furnish Mr. Graj^ additional details concerning the Club and the meeting
in question in a letter to be forthcoming in the immediate future.
Recommendation: That Crime Records Division begin preparing an ap-
propriate speech for use by INIr. Gray on August 11, 1972.
J. B. Robinson Co.,
Cleveland, Ohio, June 28, 1972.
L. Patrick Gray III,
Acting Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.
Dear Director Gray: Thank you for agreeing to speak at the Citv Club of
Cleveland on August 11, 1972!
Patrick E. O'DonneU has been enormously helpful to us and we are writing at
his suggestion.
Our usual schedule is to have lunch at Noon, followed by a half hour talk
beginning at 12:30 p.m. Questions follow until we close at 1:30 p.m.
We will have an office available for your private use before and after j'our
presentation.
I wiU be in touch with your Assistant Director Bishop with additional detaUs.
We are looking forward to the privUege of having you here.
Sincerely yours,
Larry Robinson.
The City Club,
Cleveland, Ohio, July 7, 1972.
L. Patrick Gray III,
Acting Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.
Dear Director Gray: We are very pleased that you have accepted our invita-
tion to speak at our Forum on Friday, August 11. As you may know this Forum
has brought many weU known people to Cleveland and raised many crucial issues
in the past. Many of our speakers have used this opportunity for a major policy
statement.
The Forum is carried live by one radio station (WCLV) and rebroadcasted in
its entirety by four others. We also get full TV and press coverage.
We begin with lunch at noon, go on the air at 12:30 with jour speech, and
close with a half hour of questions till 1 :30. Please plan your presentation to last
25-30 minutes.
WiU you please send us some biographical materials and the topic of your
speech so that we may give j'our coming adequate publicity.
Thanks again for planning to be with us on June 16. We look forward to seeing
iou then.
Sincerely yours,
Alan Davis, Executive Director.
July 12, 1972.
Larry Robinson,
./. B. Robinson Co.,
Cleveland, Ohio.
Dear Mr. Robinson: Assistant Director Bishop has advised me of your very
kind offer of cooperation in regard to my forthcoming trip to your city and you
may be sure I deeply appreciate your gracious hospitalitJ^
Thank you for oflfering to meet me at the airport, but this will be unnecessary
since I previously made arrangements for transportation from there to the Cit.v
Club of Cleveland. Mr. Bishop or a representative from our local office in Cleveland
will be in contact with you prior to my speech concerning any additional details
relative to my visit.
With best wishes and warm respect,
Sincerely yours,
L. Patrick Gray III, Acting Director.
106
July 13, 1972.
Alan Davis,
Executive Director, The City Club,
Cleveland, Ohio.
Dear Mr. Davis: I received j'oiir letter of July 7th and am certainly looking
forward to being with you at your Forum on August 11.
In regard to your request, I am enclosing a copj- of my biographical sketch and
my photograph which you may use as indicated in your letter. A representative
from my office will be in contact with you concerning the topic of mj- address.
With best wishes and warm respect,
Sincerely yours,
L . Patrick Gray III, Acting Director.
September 4, 1969.
Frederick A. Vierow,
Executive Secretary, The City Club,
Cleveland, Ohio.
Dear Mr. Vierow: On September 2nd I received your letter inviting me to
address your Club's Forum in Cleveland on one of the dates indicated in January
or February, 1970.
While I appreciate the kind invitation, the pressure of my official schedule,
coupled with the numerous matters which arise daily demanding my immediate
attention, precludes my accepting additional commitments. However, one of my
assistants would be pleased to make this appearance and if this arrangement is
satisfactory with you, please advise me and I will be happy to designate someone.
Sincerely yours,
J. Edgar Hoover.
Note: Bufiles disclose on 8-20-68 Vierow invited Director to address this
Forum on September 20th or 27th, 1968. By outgoing 8-27-68, invitation w-as
declined. The Director has received several invitations in past to speak before
The City Club which have been declined. This Forum and group appears to be a
good one and as indicated, will have rather extensive radio coverage. It is definitely
felt the Bureau would benefit by aflfording a sjjeaker and would offer an e.xcellent
opportunity to explain first hand our jurisdiction and responsibilities. Assistant
Director Bishop has indicated he could handle this appearance on any of the
dates in February, 1970.
Senator Byrd. Veiy well.
Reference has also been made to your speech in Butte, Mont. It
may be a little repetitious, but I was not able to be here throughout
the entire hearing, and I felt, Mr. Gray, that — and you supplied me
with a copy of this statement
Mr. Gray. Yes, sir.
Senator Byrd. You said you would do this the other day when we
\dsited with you, along with your other speeches.
Mr. Gray. That is correct, sir.
Senator Byrd. I find that this one in particular, however, sounded
like a political speech and not so much like a law-and-order speech.
It contained a good many statements' with which I could agree, and
I find no fault with the statements that were made therein per se.
You stated, for example:
The time has come to end this strident demagoguery and look at the facts about
America.
Let me ask you, what other nation in historj^ has even come close to the level
of assistance that the United States has given to enhance the economic well-being
and security of its neighbors around the world?
Since World War II the taxpayers of this country have provided approximately
$130 billion in loans and outright grants to other nations. This has gone not just
for our strongest and closest allies, but most especially to weak nations most
107
in need of it. We have given this aid hterally until it hurt — hurt our balance of
payments and our trade position with other countries.
IBut the critics who claim this is a selfish nation do not talk about that.
Another excerpt:
What other nation can and does channel resources so generously through
government programs to meet human needs? I refer to programs providing security
for the aged, help for disadvantaged children, support for the unemployed, and
other basic requirements for human life and dignity. This is done not just at one
level of government, but at the local, Federal, and State levels. To those who
claim that our national priorities are distorted away from the individual —
And there were a lot of Democrats claiming that last year —
I would point out the Federal outlays for supporting and developing human
resources such as those I have described continue to increase year after year, and
that in the current Fiscal Year 4.5 percent of the Federal budget is for human
resources and onlj- 32 percent for national defense.
But the calamity howlers here who say the little man is forgotten do not talk
about that.
Another excerpt deals with the amount of moneys that are being
provided by all levels of government for public, elementary, and sec-
ondary schools. And then the statement follows:
But those who charge that this is a society of special privilege do not talk about
all of that.
Then at the end, relatively close to the end, this quote:
Your government is doing everything possible to fight drug abuse, which
President Nixon has labeled America's public enemy number 1 .
Well, I could subscribe to most of that. As a matter of fact, I made
some political speeches along the same line. My problem comes,
though, in reconciling this kind of sj^eech made by the Acting Direc-
tor of the most effective law enforcement agency in the world, hav-
ing jurisdiction of the most comprehensive and most effective intel-
ligence gathering network in the world, this kind of statement made
in the course of a campaign dated Se])tember 7, 1972, by such an
officer. I think it ^^ ould have to be considered political by almost any
objective reader of it and certainly by myself — someone who agrees
with most of what is being said and who has stated the same thing in
many of my i)olitical s])eeches. But I am a politician, and I have to
run for office. I have to be elected and reelected. The Acting Director
of the FBI is not a pohtician. It seems to me he should avoid the
appearance of pohtics. Whatever else could be said about Mr. Hoover,
it could not be said that his agency \n as politically oriented or that
he made political speeches during a campaign.
I understand that a^ou take the ^-iewpoint that this was not a
political si)eech. You are entitled to your opinion of that, but I would
just have to also be entitled to mine.
Mr. Gray. Senator, Byrd, may I ask were you reading from the
Butte, Mont., speech?
Senator Byrd. Yes, I thought I was. Yes, Butte, Mont., Sej^ember
7, 1972. And if this has not been placed in the record, I would like for
it to be included in the record.
The Chairman. It will be admitted.
108
(Mr. Gray subsequently submitted the following document for the
record :)
U.S. Department of Justice,
Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Washington, B.C., September 7, 1972.
"A Nation That Cares" — An Address by the Honorable L. Patrick Gray
III, Acting Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation
As a fellow Rotarian, I welcome this opportunity to be your guest this evening'
We in the FBI deeply appreciate the splendid cooperation which you, as
Rotarians and citizens of this great city and State, have given us over the years.
This evening I want to talk about A Nation That Cares, a Nation which is
concerned about its citizens, their welfare, their happiness, their dignity as human
beings.
In our 20th century world these are among the salient questions facing mankind:
What kind of society do we want?
What kind of country is America going to become?
Does our Government care about our people? Does it listen?
Is it a sensitive society, wanting to make life more significant and meaning-
ful for every man, woman, and child?
These are questions which strike to the very heart of our American way of life.
They are questions about which we must take a stand if we are to face the future
with confidence and courage.
I believe that Americans know what it means to care.
We care enough to do our ver}^ best.
We care deeply about our community, our fellow man, our Nation.
We realize that unless people care — about themselves, about others, about their
values and traditions — our country will die.
This is whj^ America is today a great and respected Nation.
This is why human dignity and equality have achieved unparalleled heights
under our democratic system of government.
How important the whole concept of service is to the survival of civilization is
pointed out — very succinctly — in these words by a prominent educator:
"I do not believe," says this educator, "the greatest threat to our future is from
bombs or guided missiles. I don't think our civilization will die that way. I think
it will die when we no longer care."
Unfortunately, there are today a small minority of Americans— not many but
a few — who bitterly and falsely denounce our country as cruel, sick, callous, and
repressive.
They want to create the impression that our Government is an ogre, a monster
which simply doesn't care.
Another prominent educator has publich^ denounced our national leaders as
not giving — in his words — "any clear sign of compassion or concern for the poor,
the weak, the sick, the unemployed, the helpless. . . ."
Another speaks of a "selfish and oblivious ruling Establishment."
An author asks, "Is America Falling Apart?" and then categorically states,
"The American Constitution is out of date."
The law enforcement profession finds itself constantly attacked by extremists.
We are called "pigs." We are accused of repressing the rights of citizens. Every
opportunity is seized to portray our police, our courts, our judicial system as cold,
insensitive, unfair, and bigoted.
This is extremist rhetoric. This is inflammable rhetoric that does nothing to
enlighten or to contribute to our society.
It is not based on facts.
It deals in overkill, emotion, and flamboyance.
It seeks to set group against group, citizen against citizen.
The objective of extremist rhetoric is to create the totally false impression that
our political processes — local, state, and Federal — are insensitive and cruel, not
responsive to the needs of the day.
These detractors aim not at reform of our institutions, but at their destruction.
In my opinion the vast majority of Americans are becoming tired of this quack-
ing chorus of pessimism, cynicism, and lack of faith.
The time has come to end this strident demagoguerj^ and look at the facts about
America.
Let me ask j'ou, what other nation in history has even come close to the level of
assistance that the United States has given to enhance the economic well-being
and security of its neighbors around the world?
109
Since World War II the taxpayers of this countrj^ have provided approximately
$130 billion in loans and outright grants to other nations. This has gone not just
to our strongest and closest allies, but most especially to weaker nations most in
need of it. We have given this aid hterally until it hurt — hurt our balance of
payments and our trade position with other countries.
But the critics who claim this is a selfish Nation do not talk much about that.
Again, what other country has found a means to send people of ability and
dedication to help emerging nations around the world in their efforts to elevate
their way of life, without asking anything whatsoever in return?
The critics who say we are a crass and ungenerous people do not talk much
about that.
What other people supports anywhere near the variety of charitable causes
and contributes anywhere near the proportion of its resources for such causes?
I refer to approximately $20 billion per year in private contributions to health,
welfare, educational, and religious institutions. And this does not include the
millions of man-hours and woman-hours contributed in the form of personal
skills and service to these causes by devoted individuals.
But the doomsayers who call ours a decadent societj' do not talk much about
that.
What other nation can and does channel resources so generously through
government programs to meet human needs? I refer to programs providing security
for the aged, help for disadvantaged children, support for the unemployed, and
other basic requirements for human life and dignity. This is done not just at one
level of government, but at the local, Federal, and State levels. To those who
claim that our national priorities are distorted away from the individual, I would
point out that the Federal outlays for supporting and developing human resources
such as those I have described continue to increase year after year, and that in
the current Fiscal Year 45 percent of the Federal Budget is for human resources
and only 32 percent for national defense.
But the calamity-howlers who say that the little man is forgotten do not
talk about it.
America is NOT a selfish, unconcerned society that does not care.
Perhaps no society in all of history has been more interested in the personal
well-being of its citizens, in human concerns, in giving aid to the unfortunate
both within and beyond its boundaries.
I like the quotation attributed to Lowell Thomas, the famous radio com-
mentator and world traveler: "He who allows a day to pass without practicing
generosity . . .," he said, "is like a blacksmith's bellows — he breathes but does
not live."
This is the spirit of A NATION THAT CARES.
In our democratic society, however, the concept of service takes on a dimension
beyond material assistance.
Its greater gift is to provide a cUmate of freedom in which every individual
may pursue his own hopes, dreams and aspirations, and may work out his own
destiny as a human being.
This means a commitment to equal treatment, equal justice, and equal
opportunity for every citizen of these United States.
What other nation has devoted as large a share of its energies and resources
to assuring an education for every American until he or she reaches adulthood?
I refer not only to the some $40 billion provided by all levels of government for
public elementary and secondary schools. I am also speaking of the vast and
growing public funds for higher education and the objective, already reached in
some states, of providing a higher education to every young person who wants it.
And I am referring to the huge individual and corporate contribution to private
education at all levels and to free public libraries throughout the country.
But those who charge that this is a society of special privilege do not talk about
all of that.
What other country has made such a determined effort to combat discrimina-
tion and assure equal opportunity for all persons regardless of race, color, or
religion? This crusade is succeeding because Americans and their elected officials
do care about the rights of others. At the Federal level, the resouces and the
successes in this field continue to rise, and today there is more legal action
against alleged civil rights violators than ever before.
But those who claim that Americans are full of hatred and discrimination do
not talk about all that.
91-331 — 73-
no
FinaUy, the gift of individual freedom and equal opportunity that we enjoy
derives primarily from the free government that we have maintained for two
centuries. By that T mean a government in which the individual is protected in
his freedoms and his personal goals by laws that he or his representative helped to
make. Contrarj^ to tlae opinion of some, law Is not the enemy of freedom. Law
guarantees freedom against invasion l:-y others.
We in the FBI and in the law enf(H-cement agencies of our country are proud
of the part we are playing to make more secure .your rights, your lives, and your
property.
Today there is every indication that the upward thrust of crime is being con-
siderably slowed.
During the first quarter of 1972, crime registered its smallest increase — one
percent — in 11 years. This gives us hope that very shortly crime will reflect an
absolute decline — and that this tide of lawlessness which for so long has beset
our people will recede.
Eighty of our largest cities reported actual decreases in crime for this three-
month period — compared with 22 cities in 1970, and 59 in 1971.
In Fiscal Year 1972, the FBI's drive against organized crime hit an all-time
high with a continuing series of major gambling raids, and the conviction of more
than 750 racket figures, including some of the country's ranking syndicate leaders.
Much hard work remains ahead. Organized crime is a tenacious and costly
social malady. But effective law enforcement, utilizing the latest techniques of
crime detection, is making more difficult the position of the hoodlum mobs.
The tide is also turning in favor of the American people in the area of narcotics.
In 1971, Federal Agents removed five times as much heroin and equivalent
opium derivatives from the world market as in the year 1968.
The United States for the first time has won the genuine cooperation of foreign
countries which have been sources of narcotics, and they are clamping down on
the traffic.
Your Government is doing everything possible to fight drug abuse, which
President Nixon has labeled, "America's public enemy number 1."
The role of the law enforcement profession in helping create A NATION
THAT CARES is absolutely vital.
My command of the English language does not enable me to express my indig-
nation when I hear police officers called "pigs."
The vast majority of men and women in our profession are honorable people
conscientiously devoting their lives to a vital public service.
They are often underpaid and overworked.
They daily risk their lives that you — and millions of other Americans-^might
enjoy the liberties of this land.
To equate the law enforcement profession with repression, to sanctimoniously
accuse the FBI and local police and our whole judicial system f)f eroding the
liberties of the people, is to completely misunderstand the positive role they play
in our society.
As Acting Director of the FBI, in meeting police officers of all ranks, I have
been deeply impressed by their honesty, their integrity, and especially their com-
passion as human beings.
I always think of the picture of the police officer bending over a child who
has been badly injured, blowing the breath of life from his own body into the
mouth of that .voungster.
Ours is a profession of service. Its members are in it because thej^ care about
their city, their state, their Nation, and they care about the people in them. They
give from their own strength, knowledge, and dedication so that others might
live in safety and freedom.
That is why our Rotarian motto — SERVICE — reflects the spirit of America
and why it has so much to say to Americans.
"You must give some time to your fellow man," said Albert Schweitzer, the
famous author, philosopher, and physician. "Even if it's a little thing, do some-
thing for those who have need of a man's help, something for which you get n
pay but the privilege of doing it."
Today, more than ever, this moral imperative influences the American people.
It characterizes our Nation far more than the passing shortcomings that are
magnified by the professional critics. It is what continues to make the United
States not only a Nation but a state of mind — a state of mind that cares about
others and still lights the lamp of hojje in a troubled wt)rld.
Ill
Senator Byrd. Was I not reading from it?
Mr. Gray. 1 do not know. 1 cannot find it in the Butte, Mont.,
speech unless 1 have niy cover page of the speech mixed up or unless 1
gave you a different cover page. We will check it later.
Senator Byrd. All right.
Now, as to the request from the Wliite House for election year
political advice on criminal justice issues, this was forwarded to the
FBI field offices, as 1 understand.
Mr. Gray. Is that the Cleveland City Club speech?
Senator Byrd. No.
Mr. Gray. You are talking about the criminal justice items that
came in a memorandum from Geoft" Shepard?
Senator Byrd. This request came from Mr. Sheppard. And it
requested mformation to be used m 15 specified States. It was a
memorandum entitled "Information for Campaign Trips," and I
believe you indicated earlier that this matter was handled by your
executive assistant, Mr. Kinley.
Mr. Gray. I did not say it was handled by him. It was a piece of
paper when it came to my office, the Office of Acting Director, came
through the routing system, came to Mr. Kinley's clesk. Mr. Kinley
marked it for the Assistant Director in charge of the Crime
Research Division and it was handled that way.
Senator Byrd. WTiere were you at the time?
Mr. Gray. I had embarked on a field office visit to Anchorage,
Alaska, to Seattle, Wash., to Portland, Greg., to do a speech in
Spokane at the Washington State Bar Association and then into Butte,
Mont., and I was in Butte, Mont., when this request- — either in Butte,
Mont., or in the air — when this request was received at mj' office on
Friday.
Senator Byrd. You indicated, I believe earlier, that you hit the
overhead, was it, or the ceiling or words to that effect?
Mr. Gray. Yes, sir.
Senator By'^rd. What action did you take?
Mr. Gray. Well, part of the action that I took was to abolish the
Crime Research Division and transfer its functions throughout the
Federal Bureau of Investigation, including the transfer of press rela-
tions and the congressional service unit to m}^ office. That was not
the only reason that I abolished the Crime Research Division. There
were other reasons.
Senator Byrd. I was just going to ask, what would press relations or
congressional relations have to do with a decision in regard to a Wliite
House request to get information from various field offices?
Mr. Gray. Because that was the Division within the Federal Bureau
of Investigation that normally handled such requests.
Senator Byrd. What action was taken against any persons in con-
nection therewith?
Mr. Gray. No punitive action was taken against any persons,
Senator.
Senator Byrd. Was Mr. Thomas E. Bishop retired or reassigned?
Mr. Gray. No; he was offered a position as SAC, special agent in
charge of a field office.
Senator Byrd. Was this the result of the memorandum that came
from the White House?
112
Mr. Gray. No; because I was going to abolish the Crime Research
Division anyhow as a result of a management survey. However, rather
than giving him nothing, I offered him a position. He knew he could
have the job as special agent in charge of a field office.
Senator Byrd. When j^ou hit the ceilmg, Mr. GT&y, did you rebuke
Mr. Kinley or Mr. Felt?
Mr. Gray. Yes; I did.
Senator Byrd. Were there any other such requests that have not
yet been publicly exposed ?
Mr. Gray. I know of none. There may be some hidden in the wood-
work or Claymore Mines. I have found this to be the case from time
to time, Senator, in trying to dig out man}^ things, Senator, but I
know of none at the moment.
Senator Byrd. Would you not know of them if they had been made,
such requests?
Mr. Gray. I thought you were talking of some that were lying
around there. No, I know of none. I thought you were talking about
some action that was going to occur in the future.
Senator Byrd. I was wondering whether any similar requests from
the White House for information to be used in the campaign had been
made that had not been exposed.
Mr. Gray. No, Senator.
Senator Byrd. Did 3^ou travel by commercial planes during the
campaign?
Mr. Gray. No, sir ; I traveled b}^ U.S. Air Force aircraft. I was not
traveling during the campaign. I was traveling on my own as Acting
Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. As I explained
earlier. Senator Byrd, this was a part of the way in which I chose to
bring the FBI's message to the people of the United States, and I
have felt, whether rightly or wrongly, but it is my opinion, that the
dedicated men and women of the FBI were maligned too much and
it was time to open the window and — — ■
Senator Byrd. Travel primarily b}^ commercial plane?
Mr. Gray. No, U.S. Air Force aircraft. I did make one trip to San
Diego on United Airlines.
Senator Byrd. Why did you travel by U.S. Air Force?
Mr. Gray. I figure I have too much information in my head and it
could be extracted very easily by anyone who might hijack an air-
craft. To have the Acting Director of the Federal Bureau of Investiga-
tion in your hands and subject to the kind of sophisticated treatment
today that can be given to extract information was rather dangerous.
Senator Byrd. Do you know whether or not the Attorney General
travels by commercial plane?
Mr. Gray. He does not.
Senator Byrd. He does not travel by commercial plane?
Mr. Gray. I am sorry, sir. He does. I am sorry.
Senator Byrd. Does the Air Force bill the FBI for the use of its
jets?
Mr. Gray. Yes, it does bill us and we do pay for it. I might add,
Senator, in response to your earher question, that the Attorney General
does not have the information in his head securitywise in detail and
in depth that I have.
Senator Byrd. You indicated earlier that the Watergate break-in
occurred on June 17. Did the FBI tell Mr. Ehrlichman on that day
that Mr. Hunt was involved?
113
Mr. Gray. I do not know whether the FBI reported on that day to
Mr. EhrHchman that Mr. Hunt was involved. I will have to furnish
that information for the record. I know that probably such information
was furnished but as to the exact time I will have to determine that,
Senator.
(Mr. Graj^ subsequently submitted the following document for the
record) :
Mr. Gray. Upon checking the record, I find that the FBI did not inform
Mr. EhrUchman that Mr. Hunt was involved. However, late in the afternoon of
June 17, 1972, Mr. Alexander P. Butterfield, Deputy Assistant to the President,
was contacted b.y the Washington Field Office to ascertain what connection Mr.
Hunt had with the White House.
Senator Byrd. You indicated that you learned of the Watergate
incident in California on June 17 by your field office; do you know
who contacted the field office from the Washington office?
Mr. Gray. I do not know the individual. I know that between
9:30 and 10 a.m., Pacific daylight time, which was 12:.30 p.m., 1 p.m.,
Washington time, SAC Kunkel of the Washington field office, on
instructions from Mr. Felt, FBI headquarters, called the Los Angeles
field office and furnished them information concerning the Watergate
incident for immediate relay to me.
Senator Byrd. Who in the field office contacted you?
Mr. Gray. I was not contacted in the field office because I was in
the automobile on the way to Santa Ana, Calif., to make
Senator Byrd. W^ere you contacted b}^ Mr. Kunkel?
Mr. Gray. No, sir; I was not. The information was passed to me
by the resident agent at Santa Ana, Calif., where I was to deliver
the commencement address at the law school at Pepperdine Univer-
sity. He was instructed to contact me and to alert me as to the Water-
gate incident.
Senator Byrd. Did you know of Mr. Hunt's involvement at that
time?
Mr. Gray. No, I did not. All I knew at that time was that someone
was involved and we did not know the names.
Senator Byrd. When did you know of Mr. McCord's involvement?
Mr. Gray. 3:45 p.m., Pacific daA^light time, I was advised that he
had been identified as an ex-FBI agent and security officer of the
Committee To Reelect the President.
Senator Byrd. Mr. Ehrlichman was reported to have been looking
for Mr. Hunt on the 17th. Do you know why?
Mr. Gray. No, sir; I do not.
Senator Byrd. In view of the fact that the FBI entered the case
on the 17th, would it not be proper to assume that the FBI told
Mr. Ehrlichman that Mr. Hunt was involved?
Mr. Gray. No, it would not be proper to assume that, Senator,
because I gave instruction very earh' when I first talked with Mr. Felt,
and I must make sure when that was. The instructions I gave to
Mr. Felt were to hold this very, very, verA' closely, and that I
think was probably late in the afternoon on the 17th or early on the
18th. But I have no reason to believe that the FBI would have made
any notification to anj^body without notif3dng me first. They just do
not operate that way.
Senator Byrd. Mr. Ehrlichman was reported to have said, "We get
a routine notification." Does that mean they would get a routine
notification from the FBI if a White House staffer was in trouble?
114
Mr. Gray. No; I am going to have to look into that for you. I
cannot answer that question under oath. I am going to have to look
into that. I just do not know that information that specifically. But
I will find out and I will furnish it for the record.
(Mr. Gray subsequently submitted the following document for the
record :)
I find, Senator Byrd, upon checking the record, that when the FBI receives an
allegation of a criminal nature against an employee in the Executive Branch, as
a matter of routine, a senior oflScial of that agency is advised. This includes the
White House.
Senator Byrd. Can you inform the committee as to who first con-
tacted the White House on the 17th?
Mr. Gray. On the 17th, assuming — I will inform you, Senator
Byrd, and the members of the committee, who first contacted the
White House and when and what they told them.
Senator Byrd. And who was contacted at the White House.
Mr. Gray. Right; I will inform the committee.
(Mr. Gray subsequently submitted the followmg document for the
record :)
Senator Byrd, upon checking the record, I find that Supervisor John Ruhl of
the Washington Field Office telephonically contacted Mr. Alexander P. Butter-
field, Deputy Assistant to the President, between 6:00 and 7:00 pm, June 17,
1972, to determine Mr. Hunt's affiliation with the White House and to inform
the White House that Mr. Hunt maj' be involved in this matter which was being
investigated by the FBI. This was the first contact by the FBI with the White
House concerning this matter.
Senator Byrd. Why did the FBI not look for Mr. Hunt until the
19th?
Mr. Gray. I think we interviewed Mr. Hunt on the evening of the
17th, if my recollection is correct, and I will check that in the summary
to make sure and if I am in error I will correct it. I think I am correct
in stating that we interviewed him on the 17th.
(Mr. Gray subsequently submitted the following document for the
record :)
Upon checking the record I find that at approximately 5:30 p.m., June 17,
1972, the Washington Field Office telephonically contacted Mr. Hunt to request
an interview with him. He agreed and shortly thereafter was contacted at his
home by two Special Agents.
Senator Byrd. You interviewed
Mr. Gray. That evening.
Senator Byrd. You interviewed Mr. Hunt on that evening?
Mr. Gray. Yes; he was not doing very much talking.
Senator Byrd, Mr. Ehrlichman was having a little trouble finding
him.
Mr. Gray. I do not know that Senator. I do not know that Mr.
Ehrlichman was looking for him.
Senator Byrd. According to the press reports, I believe. Wlio
ordered the FBI into the case?
Mr. Gray. I do not think anybod}^ ordered the FBI into the case.
When I was fu"st advised of it m}' first question was, Do we have juris-
diction? Actually, our first reports w^ere that it was a burglary. Then
we thought a bombing incident was involved because one of the instru-
ments picked up there, a smoke detector, did have a couple of, I think
they were, batteries in it and it was thought that this was a bomb. In
115
fact, from the first reports our SAC in Washington field ofBce desig-
nated a burglar}^ specialist to be tlie case agent. Then as soon as we
saw the de^dces we knew we were involved with an IOC, a violation
of the intercepted communications statute so we went right into it.
Otherwise we would have deferred to the metropolitan police depart-
ment on either the burglary or the bomb, but it was later on, about
mid-day, that the U.S. attorney and the Assistant Attorney General
of the Criminal Division confirmed that we should have jurisdiction of
this case.
Senator Byrd. AVere you asked by the Wliite House to get into
the case?
Mr. Gray. I had no instructions from the Wliite House, sir.
Senator Byrd. And you got no request?
Mr. Gray. No, sir.
Senator Byrd. To what extent were you aware of the details of
the Watergate investigation as it was progressing?
Mr. Gray. To what extent was I aware of what, sir?
Senator Byrd. To what extent were you aware of the details of
the Watergate investigation as it progressed?
Mr. Gray. Well, in my position as Acting Director, I certainly was
aware of it because the teletypes would come across my desk. I had
met early in the game with the top people who were involved in the
investigation, gave them the instructions to press it aggressively,
give it a full court press, in the language of the FBI, saw these tele-
types as they would come across my desk, discuss the case with them,
but as you know, in the FBI when a'ou get hit with a major spe<ial
like this, the case agent and the agents working the case with him
agree and confer and determine the leads that are to be sent out. Those
leads are reviewed by the field supervisors and by their SAC and at
the same time they are in close touch with the Bureau supervisor.
These leads are going out and the organization is really cranking up the
speed rather rapidly through the teletype circuit. I will be happy
to submit for the record the general instructions that went out in-
dicating that this was to be an investigation aggressively conducted
and pursued, taken under the wing of each special agent in charge,
and as many special agents utilized as necessary in order to promptly
and effectively investigate this case.
(Mr. Gray subsequently submitted the following document for the
record:)
Senator Byrd, I find upon checking our records that on June 17, 1972, when
this case broke. Special Agent in Charge Kunkel was telephonically advised by the
extra-duty supervisor of the General Investigative Division, of Assistant Director
Bates' instructions that Mr. Kunkel must personally insure this case receives top
priority handUng bj^ as manj^ Special Agents as are necessary. He was instructed
as leads developed in other offices, similar telephonic instructions were to be given
to the field and if coverage of the leads turned up additional leads in another
office, these instructions of FBI Headquarters relative to the handling of this
case were to be passed on. The telephonic instructions were subsequently confirmed
in writing by FBI Headquarters and I am submitting the following document
for the record (the document is a Personal Attention airtel dated June 20, 1972,
to Special Agents in Charge Washington Field Ofhce, Atlanta, Alexandria, Balti-
more, Boston, Kansas Citj% Houston, Miami, New York and Philadelphia). The
first paragraph of this airtel appears pertinent to j'our request, Senator Byrd,
and I will quote it for the record as follows:
116
"This will confirm instructions to appropriate offices that all logical investiga-
tion is to receive immediate attention under the personal direction of SACs by
as many SAs as are needed to insure absolute, thorough, immediate, imaginative
investigation is conducted in this case. All leads are to be set out by telephone or
teletype as appropriate. Bureau is to be aware of all leads."
I am also submitting for the record a copy of a memorandum C. Bolz to Mr.
Bates dated 9/12/72, concerning instructions issued by FBIHQ to the various
FBI field offices, relay of FBIHQ instructions to other field offices, scope of in-
vestigation and certain statistical data concerning Agents assigned and man-
hours used in the investigation of this case, together wath enclosures.
AlRTEL
PERSONAL ATTENTION fi/20/72
To: SACs Washington Field; Atlanta, Alexandria, Baltimore, Boston, Kansas
Citv, Houston, Miami, New York, and Philadelphia.
From: Acting Director, FBI (139-4089).
James Walter McCord, Jr.; Bernard L. Barker, et al., Burglary of Demo-
cratic Party National Headquarters, 6/17/72, Interception of Communica-
tions, and Co: WFO.
This will confirm instructions to appropriate offices that all logical investiga-
tion is to receive immediate attention under the personal direction of SACs by
as many SAs as are needed to insure absolute thorough, immediate, imaginative
investigation is conducted in this case. All leads are to be set out by telephone or
teletj'pe as ajjpropriate. Bureau is to be aware of all leads.
Philadelphia and Miami are instructed to expend all efforts necessary to trace
the $100 bills recovered from the subjects.
^liami is to continue developing complete background on all subjects and
individuals involved who appear to have been in the Washington, D.C., area for
purjioses related to captioned burglary.
WFO discuss with the USA the possibility of obtaining a search warrant for
search of McCord's apartment in the Miami area.
?.liami and WFO are to obtain all available information concerning the bank
accoimts, as well as toll telephone calls, of the subjects and other individuals who
apjiear to be involved in this case including Everette Howard Hunt, Jr.
WFO is instructed to continue submission of a daily teletype summary of the
highlights of investigation.
To: Mr. Bates
From: C. Bolz
James Walter McCord, Jr., Et Al.;
Burglary of Democratic Partj^,
National Headquarters,
June 17, 1972,
Interception of Communications.
The following is furnished in partial response to Mr. Felt's memorandum of
September 11, 1972, wherein he requested certain statistical information showing
the scope of this investigation.
Instructions Issued by FBIHQ
On Saturday, June 17, 1972, when this case broke, SAC, Washington Field,
was telephonically advised by the extra-duty supervisor of the General Investi-
gative Division, of Assistant Director Bates' instructions that SAC must per-
sonall}' insure this case receives top priority handling by as many Special Agents
as are' necessary. As leads developed in other offices, similar telephonic instructions
were given to the field offices involved and further that if coverage of a lead
turned up additional leads in another office, the Bureau's instructions relative
to handling were to be passed on. The telephonic instructions were subsequently
confirmed in writing as sho-ma below.
By Personal Attention airtel dated June 20, 1972, to SACs, Washington Field
Office, Atlanta, Alexandria, Baltimore, Boston, Kansas City, Houston, Miami,
New York and Philadelphia, the following general instructions were set forth
by FBIHQ:
117
"This will confirm instructions to appropriate offices that all logical investi-
gation is to receive immediate attention under the personal direction of SACs
by as many SAs as are needed to insure absolute, thorough, immediate, imagi-
native investigation is conducted in this case. All leads are to be set out by tele-
phone or teletype as appropriate. Bureau is to be aware of all leads."
While the general instructions did not state that if necessary, manpower must
be diverted from other areas, it is noted that Washington Field did, in fact,
divert manpower to this case from other investigative areas to insure immediate
handling of leads.
In addition to the above general instructions, the June 20, 1972, airtel specifi-
cally instructed Philadelphia and Miami to expend all efforts necessary to trace
the $100 bills recovered from the subjects. By teletype dated June 20, 1972,
FBIHQ instructed Washington Field. Miami and Philadelphia that investigation
to identify money recovered from the subjects at the time of arrests must be
pressed vigoroush^ The observation was made that it is most important that
every effort be made to identif.y the eventual recipient of those funds.
By teletype dated June 20, 1972, to Miami, New York, Newark, Tampa, San
Juan and Washington Field, it was emphasized that Bureau is conducting vig-
orous investigation to develop an Interception of Communications violation and
to determine the reasons for this activity as well as other individuals who may
be involved. These offices, which handle practically all high-level informants
relative to Cuban matters, were instructed to immediately contact sources
knowledgeable concerning Cuban activities to develop whatever information
was available concerning the subjects, their associates and possible motives for
the burglary.
By airtel dated June 22, 1972, to SACs Washington Field Office, New Haven,
Miami, Kansas City and New York, the importance of this case was again em-
phasized in the following paragraph:
"It is again reiterated that all leads in this matter must be given the highest
priority with sufficient personnel assigned to insure maximum effort in covering
all leads."
Particular instructions in that airtel to New Haven were for that office to
intensify and expedite efforts to develop full background information concerning
Baldwin.
By teletj^pe dated June 23, 1972, SACs Washington Field, Albany, Albuquerque,
Alexandria, Atlanta. Baltimore, Birmingham, Boston, Charlotte, Chicago,
Cincinnati. Cleveland, Dallas, Denver, Houston, Jacksonville, Kansas City,
Los Angeles, Miami, Minneapolis, Newark, New Haven, New York City, Norfolk,
Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Richmond, San Antonio, San Francisco, San Juan,
Springfield and Tampa, were instructed, among other things, the following:
"This case is to receive highest priority investigative attention."
Relay of FBIHQ instructions to other field offices
As investigation in this matter was requested of auxiliary offices not previoush''
in receipt of communications, the general FBIHQ instructions substantially
identical to the above were set out as sho«ii in the attached schedule of com-
munications requesting the investigation. In those instances wherein only a portion
of the language w"as used oi' the wording substantially differed from the original
general instructions, the specific language is set out.
An analysis of the teletj'pes and airtels discloses 50 of the .51 field offices which
conducted investigation were advised of the general instructions in writing. The
Buffalo Office was orally advised of the general instructions by telephone on both
June 23, 1972 and June 24, 1972, during its efforts to locate and interview Kenneth
Dahlberg, which was the only uavestigation conducted by that office.
Field offices and legal attaches involved in the investigation
As of September 8, 1972, 51 of our field offices and four Legal Attaches conducted
investigation in this case. The latter included Mexico Citj^, Ottawa, Caracas and
Bonn.
Agents assigned and man-hours used
For the period from inception of the investigation on June 17, 1972, through
close of business September 8, 1972, 333 Agents have been assigned to work on this
case. For the same period, 14,098 man-hours have been utilized in this investigation.
With respect to the scope of communications submitted in this case, as of
September 8, 1972, there have been 130 investigative reports totaling approx-
imately 3,500 pages submitted. These reports have been disseminated to Assistant
Attorney General Henry Petersen, Criminal Division, and to the U.S. Attorney,
118
Washington, D.C. There have been approximatelj- 750 teletvpes and airtels
received by FBIHQ concerning this case as of September 8, 1972.
ACTION: This is for information. The field has been instructed to submit by close
of business September 12, 1972, information as to the number of leads which have
been covered, the total number of persons who have been interviewed and the
total number of persons who have been reinterviewed. That information will be
submitted by separate memorandum as soon as it is received.
FIELD RELAY OF INSTRUCTIONS
Date and time
To
From
Instructions
June23, 1972, 10:40 a.m.
June 23, 1972, 1 p.m.
June 23, 1972,1:58 p.m.
June 24, 1972,3:50 a.m..
June24, 1972, 9:22 a.m..
June 24, 1972, 2:20 p.m..
June24, 1972, 8:46 p.m..
Bureau and SAC's, Albany, Alexan-
dria, Baltimore, Birmingham,
Boston, Chicago, Cincinnati, Dallas,
Denver, Houston, Los Angeles,
Miami, Minneapolis, Newark, New
Haven, New Yorl<, Norfoll<,
Philadelphia, Richmond, San
Antonio, San Francisco, Springfield,
and Tampa.
Bureau and SAC's, Miami, and
Norfolk.
Bureau and SAC's, Buffalo, and
Washington Field.
Washington
Field.
General instructions.
do...
Miami.
and
Bureau and SAC's, St. Louis,
Washington Field.
Bureau and SAC's, San Juan, Chicago, ...
Louisville, and Washington Field.
Bureau and SAC's, Washington Field, St
Miami, and Kansas City.
Bureau and Tampa Miami
.-do...
..do...
. Louis.
June 27, 1972, 1:10 p.m
June27, 1972, 4:09p.m
June28, 1972, 8:38 p.m
June 30, 1972, 6:32 p.m
June 30, 1972, airtelegram..
Bureau and SAC's Buffalo, Detroit, Washington
Las Vegas, Phoenix, and St. Louis. Fiald.
Bureau and SAC, Boston do.
July 1,1972,4:45 p.m...
July 5, 1972, airtelegram.
July 5, 1972,6:25 p.m...
July 11,1972,6:05 p.m..
July 14, 1=72,3:35 p.m.
Aug. 2, 1972, cablegram.
Bureau and SAC's, Washington
Field, Baltimore, Boston, Seattle.
Bureau and SAC's, Chicago, Detroit,
Los Angeies, Miami, Milwaukee,
and New York.
Bureau and SAC's, Albany, Albuquer-
que, Alexandria, Anchorage,
Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, Butte,
Charlotte, Chicago, Cincinnati,
Cleveland, Columbia, Denver,
Detroit, Houston, Indianapolis,
Jackson, Jacksonville, Las Vegas,
Little Rock, Los Angeles, Miami,
Milwaukee, Newark, New Haven,
New York, Norfolk, Omaha,
Philadelphia, Phoenix, Pittsburgh,
Portland, Richmond, Seattle,
Salt Lake City, Springfield, and
Tampa.
Bureau and SAC's, Washington Field,
and Denver.
Bureau and SAC's Baltimore, Miami,
Boston, Norfolk, New York,
Washington Field.
Bureau and SAC's San Diego,
Washington Field.
Bureau and SAC's, Baltimore, Houston,
Louisville, Miami, and Oklahoma
City.
Bureau and SAC, Memphis
Legat, Mexico City
Miami.
Washington
Field.
do
. "All logical leads indicating
subjects have or had con-
tact in Washington, D.C.
area, Maryland and Virginia
being handled with tele-
types to other offices."
. "All leads to be handled
telephonically followed by
teletype."
. General instructions.
. General instructions.
. General instructions.
. "Bureau has requested im-
mediate coverage on all
leads in captioned matter."
". . . Bureau advised this
case is to receive highest
priority investigative at-
tention."
. "Boston is requested to
handle this lead as soon
as possible."
. General instructions.
General instructions.
General instructions.
Detroit
do
do
Washington
Field.
do
Bureau
General instructions.
General instructions.
General instructions.
General instructions.
General instructions.
"Daily summary cables need
not be submitted in future.
However, you should
continue to press remaining
investigation through
sources presently being
utilized and furnish results
by cablegram as soon as
received."
119
Senator Byrd. So you were kept completely informed as to details
as the case progressed?
Mr. Gray. No, 1 do not know that you can — that it is accurate
to use the word completely, because I was not doAMi in the nittA^
gritty and in the development of the leads.
Senator Byrd. But you were kept well Informed?
Mr. Gray. I was well informed, yes, sir.
Senator Byrd. Were you the decisionmaker as to the scope of the
investigation?
Mr. Gray. As to the scope?
Senator Byrd. Yes.
Mr. Gray. Of the investigation that it would be limited to the
IOC, to the violation of the criminal statutes involving mtercepted
communications?
Senator Byrd. As to the scope.
Mr. Gray. That is all we had, yes, sir.
Senator Byrd. And you made the decision?
Mr. Gray. Well, I "^ made it in conjunction with the Assistant
Attorney General of the Criminal Division, and U.S. attorney,
because anything they wanted us to investigate, we would investigate.
I would not say^ no, I am not gomg to investigate, but what we had
was a crimmal violation of the intercepted communications statutes
as the case developed. We did not know what we had initially, to be
very honest with you, Senator.
Senator Byrd. But it was your decision as to whether smy leads
would be follov. ed that might go higher up than the seven defendants?
Mr. Gray. I did not make any decisions on leads, and this is where
I do not write the leads. The case agents write the leads, they are
reviewed by the field supervisors, the Special Agent in Charge re-
views them, then they are reviewed over by the Bureau supervisors.
Senator Byrd. Who determines as to whether or not they would
be pursued further?
Mr. Gray. They are being pursued, you know, as soon as those
leads are sent out— the teletype goes out, Senator, and it is not a
question of where a decision is made. We added a lot of leads to
those that were being sent out by the office of origin, and by we, I
mean the office of the General Investigative D vision, and the chief
of the Accounting and Fraud Section who is in the General Investi-
gative Division.
Senator Byrd. Were you required to clear the scope of the investi-
gation through the Justice Department?
Mr. Gray. Yes, sir; we work with them verj' closely on that.
Senator Byrd. But were you required to clear the scope of the
investigation through the Justice Department, or was this a deter-
mination that 3'ou would make yourself?
Mr. Gray. No, I do not think it was a determination at all. I
could make a determination but I would have to investigate what the
Department of Justice told me to investigate, and I investigated
within our jurisdiction.
Senator Byrd. Who made the determination as to how far you would
go in the investigation and as to whether or not leads would be fol-
lowed which may have pointed to people in the White House?
120
Mr. Gray. Oh, we followed up on people in the White House, and
we mter\newed them, and I would be happy to submit to the com-
mittee and for the record, a list of the people interviewed at the
White House, at the Committee to Re-Elect the President, and the
dates on which they were interviewed.
(Mr. Gray subsequently submitted the following documents for
the record:)
INTERVIEWS OF WHITE HOUSE PEOPLE
Name Position Date of interview
White House personnel interviewed:
Charles W. Colson Special Counsel to the President... June 22, June 26, Au" 29
A, n r. .. r ,j r, . - Aug. 30, 1972.
Alex P. Butterfield Deputy Assistant to the President June 17 1972
Alfred Wong. Special Agent in Charge, Technical Security, U.S. June 22', June 27, 1972.
Secret Service.
Bruce Kehrii Staff Secretary to the President June 19, Aug 14 1972
James George Baker Protective Security Division U.S. Secret Service, Super- June 29, 1972. '
visory Security Specialist.
John Wesley Dean III.... Legal Counsel to the President .June27 July? July8 1972
Fred Fielding Assistant to the Legal Counsel to the President.. June 27, Aug. 30 1972
John James Caulfield ConsultanttotheDirectorof Treasury Law Enforcement June 26 1972
Kathleen Ann Chenow... Secretary to David Young.. July 3 1972
David Reginald Young Special Staff Assistant, National Security Councij July3'july7 Aug 30 197'
John D. Ehrlichman Assistant to the President tor Domestic Affairs July 21 1972'
Dwight L. Chapin Deputy Assistant to the President Aug 28 1972
Gordon Strachan Staff Assistant at the White House . " Do '
u,u- ^iJ''^'" ^- ^''^'"°"^ Assistant to the President for Congressional Relations... Sept. 8, 1972.
White House personnel contacted for the purpose indicated, though not interviewed:
Wilbur Jenkins Administrative Officer, White House (checked records Aug. 7, 1972.
for official travel of Hunt).
John Campbell Staff Assistant, Office of Domestic Council (made Do.
available travel voucher and related documents
concerning Liddy).
Margaret L. Beale Personnel Office, Office of IVIanagement and Budget Do.
Executive Office of the President (made available
copies of personnel action concerning Liddy).
James Rogers Personnel Office, White House Office (made available Do.
forms from Hunt's personnel hie).
Arthur Bauer Fiscal Service Officer, Office of Management and Bud- Aug. 10, 1972.
get. Executive Office of the President (made available
copy of official time and attendance records regarding
Liddy).
INTERVIEWS OF COMMITTEE TO REELECT THE PRESIDENT'S PERSONNEL
John N. Mitchell Campaign director July 5, 1972
Robert Mardian Special assistant to the campaign manager July 17, 1972
Jeb Stuart Magruder Deputy campaign director July 20, 1972.
Robert C. Odie, Jr Director of administration June 19, June 20, June 23
,, . ^, „, June28,June29,Julyn,1972.
Maurice Stans Chairman of the finance committee, CRP July 5, July 14 ttwice) July 28
1972.
Hugh Walter Sloan, Jr.. Former treasurer of the finance committee, CRP July 17, 1972.
Robert L. Houston Security coordinator . June 20, June 26, June 27
,,.,,. , .„ , ., July 3, July 13, July 17, 1972.
Millicent (Penny) Macey
..(^'eason.... Security officer.. June 30, July 1, July 2, 1972.
Martha Duncan Officer manager.. June 30, July 3, 1972
Herbert Lloyd Porter Director of scheduling _ July 19, 1972.
Fred LaRue... Special consultant to the campaign manager July 18,' July 21, 1972.
Paul E. Barrick... Treasurer, finance committee, CRP June 30 July 24 1972
DeVan L. Shumway.. Director of public affairs... July 24, 1972.
Powell A. Moore.. Director of press and information . . Do'
Glen J. Sedam, Jr General counsel. June 23, June 26, July 18,
Judith Graham Hoback Assistant to the treasurer, finance committee, CRP June 23, July 18, 1972.
Lee Nunn Finance chairman, finance committee, CRP. June 23, July 13 1972
Monico Bungato Messenger, mail service June 26 1972
Michael Terrence Masse Security officer ... June 30 1972
Stephen B. King Bodyguard for Mrs. Mitchell Do'
Tom Wince Driver for Mrs. Mitchell Do.
George Roger Houston Security guard Do
George Ellis Shanks.. do Do'
James William Bennett.. do. Do'
Timothy Michael Flynn do . " Do'
John W. Ernst do ./..... Do!
James Edward Cooper Security supervisor. ..^ Do!
Robert Houston .do " Do.
Stephen Tingley Anderson .. Security guard !!!!!!!!!!!!III Do!
Mrs. Sally Harmony Secretary to G. Gordon Liddy Do.
Kristin Forsberg Personal secretary to Mrs. Mitchell. ... Do.
Maureen C. Devlin Receptionist Do.
121
INTERVIEWS OF COMMITTEE TO REELECT THE PRESIDENT'S PERSONNEL— Continued
Name Position Date of interview
Sylvia Panarites Secretary July 3, 1972.
Michael Miller.. Man in charge of victory dinner June 30, 1972.
Peter Holmes.. Assistant to the treasurer Do.
Louis James Russell Investigator July 3, 1972.
Peter Fokine... Assistant of finance June 30, 1972.
Tyloe Washburn Assistant to the assistant treasurer Do.
Kenneth Talmage.. Aide to Maurice Stans Do.
Jane Dannenhauer Secretary. June 30, July 17, 1972.
Florence Thompson do June 30, July 17, 1972.
Margaret Kerwan... do Do.
Charles Pashayan, Jr Vice chairman on the finance committee Do.
V. Elaine Hall Special projects Do.
Gary Langhorne Washburn Do.
Ann Pinkerton Do.
Connie K. Cudd Staff secretary July 6, 1972.
Lewis Webster Creel Security guard July 12, July 13, 1972.
Ronald Charles Howard do... July 12, 1972.
Ronald Bruce Buchanan do Do.
Yolanda Dorminy Secretary July 13, July 17, 1972.
Peter A. Holmes... Assistant to the treasurer... July 18, 1972.
Laura Alice Frederick Personal secretary to Fred LaRue. Do.
Kenneth Wells Parkinson Counsel... July 21, 1972.
Paul L. O'Brien Cocounsel July 21, August 11, 1972.
Truman Jacob Weaver Security guard July 18, 1972.
Joseph Earl Ray Mills do July 24, 1972.
James E. Caudill Security man for Republican National committee July 25, 1972.
Senator Byrd. But did the agents have full responsibility for
making their o^\^l decisions as to how far to proceed with those leads?
Mr. Gray. Well, the}" have full decision to suggest, but when it
comes to a judgment question, 3'ou know, the}" are pretty responsive
to power and they know when the}" begin gettmg close that they have
got to ask, and they asked when it came down to interviewing John
Eluiichman, for example.
Senator Byrd. So, then, somebody had to make a decision as to the
scope, is what I am trying to get at.
Mr. Gray. That is right.
Senator Byrd. Who made that decision?
Mr. Gray. I made this decision with Assistant Attorney General
Henry Petersen to interview Jolm Ehrlichman.
Senator Byrd. But you made the decision yourself?
Mr. Gray. Yes; but I consulted Henry Petersen. I did not do it
without his consultation.
Senator Byrd. Did the FBI consult at any time with the Justice
Department as to how the FBI should proceed in the case?
Mr. Gray. Yes, su-; because we are working hand in glove with the
case agents working at the assistant U.S. attorney level and the Bureau
supervisors working at the Criminal Division level and, yes, there were
conferences.
Senator Byrd. Who were the contacts between Justice and the
FBI?
Mr. Gr.\y. The Criminal Division and the Bureau supervisors in
the General Investigative Division and me talkmg with the As-
sistant Attorney General of the Crimmal Di^"ision and with the
Attorney General and my No. 2 man domg the same thmg, the
acting associate director. You know, we work together and we tele-
phone and we talk back and forth.
Senator Byrd. Did you consult mth Mr. Kleindienst, the Attorney
• General himself?
122
Mr. Gray. I did not consult with, him in the sense that I asked
him for directions or guidance or orders. I pushed the FBI button and
said go, give it a full court press, and the}^ know exactly what to do,
Senator, and he put no restrictions, no limitations on me. I testified
this morning a couple of times that if any of the senior officials of the
FBI were called before this committee or the Ervin select com-
mittee, and asked whether any restrictions or limitations were placed
upon them, they w^ould say, no.
Senator Byrd. Did any FBI agent on the case feel there were leads
which should be pursued and which were necessary in the case but
which you or the Justice Department told them not to pursue?
Mr. Gray, If they did I do not know about it. I do not mean to
say that they did not feel that. Some of the people might have felt
that, but they did not report them up to me and say, "Hey, why are
we not doing this?"
Senator Byrd. So, the committee is to understand that no agent at
any time wished to pursue any lead which was turned down by you
or by the Justice Department?
Mr. Gray. I can recollect none. But before I answer under oath so
categoricall}^, I would want to check because that is a pretty broad
cpiestion. I testified earlier this morning that there were instances in
which I stopped the investigation for a couple of days until I could
get something clarified with regard to particular people, I think it
was in response to questions from Senator Hart involving the Central
Intelligence Agency, and then I said go. I turned on the green light.
Senator Byrd. FBI agents were not then really free to follow leads,
were they?
Mr. Gray. They certainly were free to follow any lead they wanted
to follow that involved a criminal violation of the statutes of the
United States in which we have jurisdiction.
Senator Byrd. But when it came to higher-ups in the White House
were they to follow leads?
Mr. Grav. I know of no restrictions that were placed upon them
but the agents know, Senator, just as operating practice — and any
President, I feel sure, would want to be accorded the same treatment
by his subordinates — when you get that close, let us be real sure that
we want to go there, you know, because this is going to become news
right awa}^ that we are interviewing this fellow. This is just a fact of
life and I think the real fact of life is that we interviewed, because
we thought we had to.
Senator Byrd. So when clearance was sought the green light was
given?
Mr. Gray. That is right.
Senator Byrd. In every mstance?
Mr. Gray. I am not going to answer that question that categoricalh*
because there may be some instance, even in my intensive review of
this case and my participation in it, where I could make an error and
I would rather reserve the answer to that so I can check it and give
a statement for the record. Senator Byrd.
(Mr. Gray subsequently submitted the following document for the
record :)
After checking the matter, I have been informed there were no leads the Agents
wanted to follow which they were not permitted to do.
123
Senator Byrd. Did Mr. Kunkel ever ask to interview any party
and
Mr. Gray. Are you referring to Mr. Colson b}^ any chance, Senator?
I do not know. If you can tell me the name of the person you are
talking about.
Senator Byrd. Mr. Kunkel, you referred to the name earlier.
Mr. Gray. Yes, sir; he was the SAC in charge of the Washington
field office.
Senator Byrd. Did he at any time suggest any party be inter-
viewed, which suggestion was turned down?
Mr. Gray. I do not recall any such but I will check the record
again and furnish an answer to that question on the basis of the full
record after careful examination.
(Mr. Gray subsequently submitted the following document for
the record :)
After checking the record I find my recollection was correct and that no inter-
views suggested by SAC Kunkel were turned down.
Senator Byrd. Have any FBI officials associated with the investi-
gation of the Watergate inquuy smce been transferred out of
Washington?
Mr. Gray. Yes, sir; they have and I would like to give the reasons
for the transfer. The assistant director m charge of the General
Investigative Division, Mr. Charles W. Bates, came to me and asked
if he could return to San Francisco as SAC when he found that
position was being vacated. He came to me and made that personal
request and I said, yes; he could. I certainly considered that mimy
people would understand, would interpret this to be Gray transferrmg
somebody out of Washington who had a role in the Watergate. In
fact, Charlie Bates and I discussed it and I said, "Charlie, the heck
with it. There is nothmg mvolved in this, you want to go to San
Francisco, I agree."
SAC Kunkel, who was special agent in charge of the Washington
field office, was transferred to St. Louis for another reason and I
would rather not disclose it.
Senator Byrd. Would you disclose it to the committee?
Mr. Gray. Oh, I will disclose it to the committee, absolutely, and
in copious detail, but it involves a personal and disciplinary matter
and I do not want to air it.
Senator Byrd. Was anyone else transferred?
Mr. Gray. Well, there are lots of people transferred, ^Senator,
and I will supply to the committee a full record of all transfers since,
of kev officials, SAC's and above, since I have been Acting Director
of the FBI.
Senator Byrd. No; I am talking about FBI officials associated
with the direction of the Watergate incident.
Mr. Gray. With the Watergate, oh, I see.
Senator Byrd. You mentioned Mr. Kunkel, and you have men-
tioned Mr. Bates.
Mr. Gray. Right. Henry Shultz, who was the inspector's No. 1 man,
who is now a SAC in New York, the special agent in charge of General
Crime Division, but once again, that is a promotion for him. He was
transferred first to the Inspection Division, which is a lateral pro-
motion in the FBI, and then transferred to New York.
124
There was a resignation, you know, one of the men resigned because
he thought that under my new pohcy of exchangmg officials between
the field and headquarters he was going to go next to the field, so I
am told, and this is hearsay and I would not like to — I will reveal to
the committee this man's name and give the committee the full de-
tails and circumstances but, with regard to his privacy, I would not
like to spell it out here on the public record.
Senator Byrd. Was there an^^one else associated with the direction
of the Watergate inc^uir}' who has since been transferred out of
Washington?
Mr. Gray. I do not know but I will furnish for the record the
exact information that 3^ou want. Senator Byrd. I cannot recall hny
others.
Senator Byrd. Was Mr. Charles Bolz?
Mr. Gray. No; he was not transferred.
Senator Byrd. I beg your pardon?
Mr. Gray. He was not transferred. He was the man I was referring
to, since 3'ou raised his name. He is the man I was referring to who,
under mA' new polic}^ of top people going from headcjuarters to field
and field to headquarters, submitted his resignation and went over to
HUD. I think if Mr. Bolz were called before this committee probably
he would state under oath there was no problem at all with Watergate.
Senator Byrd. Was he associated directly with Watergate?
Mr. Gray. Yes, sir; he was.
Senator Byrd. What agency is he now with?
Mr. Gray. He is mth HUD, I think, but I am not sure.
(Mr. Gray subsequently submitted the following document for the
record :)
I have stated in response to a question by Senator Byrd that I would furnish
for the record the names of anyone associated with the direction of the Watergate
inquiry who has since been transferred out of Washington. I have mentioned
Charles W. Bates, Robert G. Kunkel, Henry A. Schutz, Jr., and Charles Bolz.
On checking the record I find that Mr. Schutz had no connection with the case.
However, there is one other individual who participated in the direction of the
Watergate inquiry for a short j^eriod of time at FBI Headquarters and who
is now assigned to our Boston Oif ce, SA Charles T. Gillespie. Mr. Gillespie at
the time was a Supervisory Special Agent in the General Investigative Division.
He was Number 1 Man to 'Mr. Bolz. Prior to the Watergate matter, Mr. Gillespie
expressed a desire to return to investigative work in the field. I approved his
transfer to the Boston Office on June 20, 1972, however, he did not report there
until July 18, 1972. The Watergate inquiry had no bearing on his transfer.
To summarize information previously set forth, Mr. Charles W. Bates, then
Assistant Director, General Investigative Division, at his own request was
transferred to our San Francisco Office as SAC arriving there November 17,
1972. The Watergate inquiry had no bearing on his transfer. Mr. Robert G.
Kunkel, then SAC of the Washington Field Office, as a result of a matter entirely
unrelated to the Watergate inquirj^, was transferred as SAC of the St. Louis Otrce
arriving there October 26, 1972. jNIr. Charles Bolz, then Chief, Accounting and
Fraud Section, General Investigative Division, by letter dated December 6,
1972, submitted his resignation to be effective close of business December 23,
1972, indicating he desired to remain in the Washington area which he realized
presented a conflict with his obligation to be available for any and all assignments.
For personal reasons he felt bound to accept another position which would permit
him to remain in the Washington area. The Watergate inquiry had no bearing
on his resignation.
There were no other individuals transferred from the Washington area who
participated in the direction of the Watergate inquiry.
Senator Byrd. When were you first aware of the identity of the five
defendants of the Watergate affair?
125
Mr. Gray. I do not know. I vdW have to look in the teletype or in a
summary and furnish that information for the record. That is so
specific a question I just cannot answer it.
Senator Byrd. How were you made aware of their identity?
Mr. Gray. I wdll have to furnish that for the record, too.
(Mr. Gray subsequently submitted the following document for the
record :)
From a review of the records, I find that about 12:30 pm, Pacific DayUght Time,
June 17, 1972, the Special Agent in Charge of the Los Angeles Office briefed me
concerning the early facts which were then known. The names of the individuals
involved at that time were later found to be aliases. The information which was
furnished to me at that time dealt with the arrests of the subjects at the Water-
gate, very sketchy information about materials they were in possession of and the
fact that the FBI was conducting investigation of this situation. At about 3:11
pm, Pacific Daylight Time, June 17, the Los Angeles Office briefed me in more
detail. That briefing was to the effect that the Watergate security guard had found
tape around two door locks, he believed a burglary was in progress, he called the
police who apprehended five subjects in the Democratic Headquarters. The true
identity of Barker, Gonzalez, Martinez and Fiorini was then known, but McCord
had not yet been identified as the true name of the individual who when appre-
hended gave the name Edward Martin. That briefing gave information about the
material which the subjects had in their possession such as lockpicking devices,
surgical gloves, camera equipment, transceivers and a bugging device.
I was informed that search warrants were being issued for hotel rooms used by
the subjects and for the vehicle they Avere known to be using. I was informed that
attorney Michael Douglas Cadd^^ gratuitously appeared at the IMetropolitan
Police Department, Second District Headquarters, and stated he was representing
the subjects who were in custody although the subjects had not previouslj^ made a
telephone call to contact him or anyone else after they were in custody. I was also
informed that all of the subjects refused to be interviewed or to state where they
came from, for whom they worked or their purposes for being in the building. I
was advised they had a substantial quantity of brand new $100 bills in their pos-
session and that further investigation by the FBI was going forward. At about
3:4.5 pm, FBIHQ called the Los Angeles Office to advise the identity of McCord
and this was relayed to me by the Los Angeles Office shortly thereafter.
Senator By'rd. Were you
Mr. Gray'. I believe it was in one of those telephone calls when the
names were given to me but I am going to have to check. I have the
phone calls all listed here and I just do not have all of the details be-
hind each phone call listed.
Senator Byrd. Were a^ou aware that one of the defendants was a
former FBI agent and CIA employee and was the salaried security
coordinator to the Republican Committee, and the Committee to
Re-Elect the President?
Mr. Gray. The information I received is June 17, 3:45 Pacific Day-
light Time, to the effect that McCord^tliis was about the fifth or
sixth phone call — McCord having been identified as an ex-FBI agent
and security officer for the Committee to Re-Elect the President.
Senator By'Rd. Did you know Mr. McCord?
Mr, Gray. No, sir; I did not.
Senator Byrd. Had you ever heard of him previous to that?
Mr. Gray'. No, sir; I had not.
Senator Byrd. During the Watergate trial it was reportedh^ alleged
that Mr. James McCord, Jr., was "plugged" in to the FBI. Can you
tell us how Mr. McCord was plugged in to the FBI?
Mr. Gray'. No, sir. Mr. James McCord, Jr.? Is that the same man?
Senator By'rd. Yes.
Mr. Gray. No; I do not know how he was plugged in to the FBI
and I do not know that he was.
91-331—73 9
126
Senator Byrd. This was reportedly alleged during the trial. Has
anyone in the FBI been asked to check on this?
Mr. Gray. No, sir; but we will sure check on it and submit an
answer to the committee. It is the first I have heard of it.
Senator Byrd. I hear it through the press, as I say. I should think
it would be important for the FBI to check this out.
Mr. Gray. It is and we will submit the information we find to the
Committee, sir.
(Mr. Gray subsequentl}- submitted the following document for the
record :)
Upon checking, Senator, I find that Mr. McCord was an FBI Agent from Octo-
ber 25, 1948, until he voluntarily resigned to enter ])rivate business February 18,
1951. We did not uncover any information, prior to, during, or after the Watergate
investigation to the effect that McCord received classified information'^froni^or
was "plugged into" the FBI.
Senator Byrd. Mr. Robert Houston, one of McCord's assistants
to the Nixon Committee, in describing his duties under McCord said
"Part of my instructions were to receive and record instructions from
outside police forces. The information I got came from the FBI." Can
3'OU tell me what information was turned over to Houston or McCord
or anybod}' else?
Mr. Gray. I do not believe any information was turned over to
anybody. Are 3^ou talking prior to Watergate?
Senator Byrd. I am talking with reference to the Watergate.
Mr. Gray. That he got information from the Federal Bureau of
Investigation regarding the Watergate incident and the conduct of
the investigation?
Senator Byrd. I am quoting him, "Part of my instructions were to
receive instructions from McCord", I assume "were to receive and
record information from outside police forces. The information I got
came the FBI." This may not have been
Mr. Gray. I do not think he was, Senator. What I think they are
talking about is some of their intelligence information with regard to
demonstrations and harassment and the rest of the things that we
are talking about, because I know of no information that we furnished
to a Mr. Houston. I know who Houston is because of the investigation
but once again, we will, if you will tell me from where you are citing
that statement, we will check it out and run it down and give you a
full report. I will give the committee a report.
Senator Byrd. Well, even so, even so, if Mr. Houston was receiving
information from the FBI, I think the committee ought to know what
information was turned over to him.
Mr. Gray. I do not think Mr. Houston was. That is my testimony
right now. What I am saying to you is if he was we will find out about
itand we will give 3^ou a report to the committee.
(Mr. Gray "subsequently submitted the following document for
the record :)
After checking our records, Senator, I find that to our knowledge no information
was given to Mr. Houston.
Senator Byrd. Did you personally know or have contact with
anyone at the Committee for the Reelection of the President?
Mr. Gray. No, sir. I know people there, but I had no contact
with them.
127
Senator Byrd. Did you have contact with anyone emploj'ed by
the Committee for the Reelection of the President?
Mr. Gray. Contact when or where or for what purpose?
Senator Byrd. At any time.
Mr. Gray. No; I had nothing to do with that committee.
Senator Byrd. You had no contact with any employee of that
committee?
Mr. Gray. No. Except during the conduct of this investigation,
the FBI did; we interviewed those people. But I had no personal
contact. I had no telephone calls. I had no letters. I had no visits.
Senator Byrd. Irrespective of the Watergate investigation, did
you have any contacts?
Mr. Gray'^, No.
Senator Byrd. Did 3^ou know anyone on the committee? Did you
know anyone on the committee staff? Did you ever have any contact
with them?
Mr. Gray. Sure; I knew those people — sure. I knew Bob Mardian
and John Mitchell and Fred LaRue; I came to know those people
after I came to Washington and after 1969. I did not know them
before that.
Senator Byrd. When did 3"ou first learn of Mr. Lidch''s involvement
in the Watergate break-in?
Mr. Gray. I will have to give you the exact information because
I did not provide mvself with that kind of detailed information today
and I will have to submit it. It probably came to me under an alias
first and then probably came to me with his true name as we developed
it. I know I have the names of the people who were arrested but those,
as we know, were aliases as we later found out. But I will have to
find the exact time that George Gordon Liddy's name was delivered
to me, Senator.
Senator Byrd. And from whom.
Mr. Gray. And from whom; yes.
(Mr. Gray subsequently submitted the following document for
the record :)
I find, Senator Byrd, upon checking the records, that on June 18, 1972, we
first learned that one George Leonard, later identified as George Gordon Liddy,
was registered at the Watergate Hotel with the group which was arrested at the
Democratic Committee Headquarters. Extensive efforts, of course, were made
to endeavor to identify' Leonard. On June 28, 1972, Assistant Director Bates
directed a memorandum to Acting Associate Director Felt which stated that at
12:50 P.]\L that date, SAC Kunkel had called to advise that in tracing telephone
calls of Martinez and Barker, one of the numbers called at the Committee to
Reelect the President was that of a Mr. Gordon Liddy. Our Agents attempted
to interview Liddj' that da.y and he refused to be interviev/ed. Subsequently, on
7/3/72, Liddy's photograph was positively identified as being the individual
known as George Leonard.
Senator Byrd. Were 3^011 aware that \h\ Liddy was a former FBI
agent and that he was finance counsel for the Committee to Re-Elect
the President at the time of the Watergate break-in?
Mr. Gray. No; I was not. I did not even know Mr. Lidd}'.
Senator Byrd. You did not know him personally' ?
Mr. Gray. No, sir; I did not.
Senator Byrd. Even through the Committee to Re-elect the
President?
Mr. Gray. No, sir; I did not.
128
Senator Byrd. You indicated earlier todaj^ that the President had
suggested to ^Irs. Gray she not work for the Committee for the
Re-Election of the President.
Mr. Gray. Yes, sir. She was going to go douii there as a
volunteer, a lot of ladies were volunteering to do A\'ork for the
Committee to Re-Elect the President, and she said to the President
when we came back from Mr. Hoover's funeral, "Pat has told me I
must never ask questions of the President but I want to know if it
would be all right for me to volunteer to work for the Committee to
Re-Elect the President." And he said, "No, you must not, 3"ou
cannot do that," and she did not.
Senator Byrd. Had she previously worked for the committee?
Mr. Gray. No sir.
Senator Byrd. When did you first become aware of Mr. Howard
Hunt's role in the case?
Mr. Gray. I think it may have been when I read the teletj^pes
regarding his investigation, regarding the fact that we interviewed him
that Saturday evening, the 17th, but I will have to once again go to
the record and provide 3'ou mth the exact information, Senator.
Senator Byrd. And indicate — ■ —
Mr. Gray. From whom.
Senator Byrd (continuing). From whom the information came.
(Mr. Gray subsequent!}" submitted the follo\ving document for the
record :)
After checking the records, I find the FBI first became aware of Mr. Hunt's
involvement in this case during the search conducted on the afternoon of June 17,
1972, of the two rooms at the Watergate which were rented by the arrested men.
During that search an envelope containing a country club biU of Mr. Hunt's
was found. Also located during this search was an address book which belonged
to Bernard Barker and contained the letters "HH, W. House," beside which letters
was telephone number 202-4-36-2282.
A check of the field office indices showed we had previously conducted a Special
Inquiry investigation on Hunt in 1971 at which time he was being considered for
a job as Consultant to the White House. Subsequent contact was made with
Mr. Butterfield at the White House between 6:00 and 7:00 pm, June 17, 1972,
and he indicated Mr. Hunt had previously worked as a White House consultant,
but Mr. Butterfield did not believe he was then employed by the White House.
Senator, it is my recollection that I personalh^ was advised of Mr. Hunt's
involvement in this case by my associate, W. Mark Felt, who telephoned me on
June 18, 1972.
Senator Byrd. Were you aware that Mr. Hunt had been a
consultant to the White House?
Mr. Gray. Not until the investigative reports began coming across
my desk. I did not know Howard Hunt.
Senator Byrd. Were you aware that he had worked for ]\Ir.
Charles Colson?
Mr. Gray. No, sir; I was not.
Senator Byrd. Did a^ou know Mr. Hunt personally?
Mr. Gray. No, sir. '^
Senator Byrd. Did the FBI ciuestion Mr. Hunt?
Mr. Gray. Yes, sir; we interviewed him that evening and he did
not do very much talking. As I recall, the interview report said that
he wanted to consult an attorney.
Senator Byrd. Were you aware that Mr. Colson sent Howard Hunt
to Denver last March to interview the ITT lobbjdst, Dita Beard?
129
Mr. Gray. I was not, no, sir; I was not until the investigation,
this Watergate investigation, developed and we found it out through
that. I believe w^e found it out through that. I may be misspeaking
myself and I had better check the record on that before I get on with
that one.
(Mr. Gray subsequently submitted the following document for
the record :)
After checking our records, Senator, I find that Mr. Colson was interviewed
by Washington Field Office on June 22, June 26, August 29 and August 30, 1972.
Concerning Howard Hunt's travel and reimbursement for travel expenses, he
said on August 29, 1972, he was aware that Mr. Hunt traveled on a frequent
basis, but that there were only two trips that Mr. Hunt made which were au-
thorized by Mr. Colson. He assumed the other trips were on behalf of some other
):)erson. With respect to the trips that Mr. Colson authorized, one was to Denver,
Colorado, in March, 1972, in connection with the "ITT case." Mr. Colson did
not state what was learned by Mr. Hunt on this trip and the matter was not
pursued by our Special Agents since there was no relationship between that trip
and the Watergate matter and we were not investigating ITT.
Senator Byrd. Were you the decisionmaker with regard to the
information that would be supplied to the Judiciary Committee
during the hearings on the nomination of Mr. Kleindienst?
Mr. Gray. No, sir; I was not the decisionmaker until there came
an exchange here when it was thought that Mr. Kleindienst ought to
take himself out of the position of making those decisions. I do not
remember excatl}^ when that was. I would have to go back to the record
but there did come a time when I, as Deputy Attorney General
Designate, made those decisions on the basis of the rules and regula-
tions of the Department and on the advice that I received from the
Antitrust Division.
Senator Byrd. You do not recall the date?
Mr. Gray. I do not recall the date; no, sir.
Senator Byrd. Will 3'ou supply that for the record?
j\Ir. Gray. Oh, yes, sir; we will do that. W^e will have to check the
record of testimon}^ of the ITT hearings.
(Mr. Gray subsequently submitted the following documents for
the record:)
Mr. Gray. Upon checking the record I find that I started making the decisions
regarding the furnishing of information to the Judiciary Committee during the
hearings on the nomination of Mr. Kleindienst on either March 9 or 10, 1972.
That is as precise as I can be. My first letter to the Chairman of the Judiciary
Committee in which certain information was furnished and other information
w^as withheld is dated March 17, 1972. This letter and letters from me dated
March 23 and 24, 1972 addressed to James F. Flug, April 4, 1972 to Mr. Flug,
tw^o letters of April 7, 1972 addressed to Senator James O. Eastland, letter of
April 11, 1972 and letter of April 28, 1972, with enclo.sures addressed to Senator
Eastland, are provided for insertion in the record,
March 17, 1972.
Hon. Jamks O. Eastland,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.
Dkar Mr. Chairman: On Monday evening, March 13, Mr. .lohn Holloman,
Committee Chief Coimsel, delivered to the Department a document entitled
"List of Documents Requested for Senate Judiciary Hearing as of March 13, 1972."
I am forwarding some of the documents on that list. Other documents oa the list
do not exist or cannot be fovmd. Some have already been supplied to the Com-
mittee. Finally, the Department of Justice declines to supply some of the docu-
ments requested for the reasons stated below.
Following is an item-by-item response to the list:
Item No. 1. — Copy of the Attorney General Memorandum in the Canteen case,
dated April 7, 1969.
Attached.
130
We request that this document be available for inspection bv Senators only, that
no copies be made and that it be returned to the Department of Justice "at the
conclusion of these hearings.
Item No. 2. — Xerox of any notes, buck slips, and memoranda showing back-
ground behind filing of appUcations to delay submission of jurisdictional statement
m Gnnnell case in Supreme Court.
None.
Item No. 3. — Xerox of any notes, buck slips, and memoranda relating to selection
and/or appointment of Richard Ramsden as coasultant, especially the conflict of
interest form required by Executive Order.
None.
Item No. 4- — Xerox of any memoranda reflecting receipt of Bruce McLaury oral
opinion on ITT arguments.
None.
Ilcm No. 5.— Copy of the original of a letter dated Sept. 21, 1971 from Mr.
Reuljeu B. Robertson III to Deputy Attorney General Klcindienst.
Attached.
Item No. 6. — Xerox of (he copy of the Robertson letter that Robertson sent to
McLaren.
Attached.
Item No. 7. — Xerox of any notes, Ijuck slips, and memoranda showing background
behind Sept. 22, 1971 reply from iNlcLaren to Robertson.
None in addition to the documents we have already produced.
Hem No. 8. — Copy of the file copy of a letter dated Sept. 22, 1971 from Assistant
Attorney General Richard W. AIcLaren to Mr. Reuben B. Robertson III in
response to a Sept. 21, 1971 letter from Mr. Robertson to the Deputy Attorney
General.
Attached.
Item No. .9.— Copy of the original of a memorandum dated April 9, 1969 from
Assistant Attorney General Richard W. McLaren to the Deputy Attorney Gen-
eral, re "ITT-Canteen."
Attached.
Item No. 10 — Copy of the original of the memorandum dated October 13, 1970
from Assistant Attorney General Richard W. McLaren to the Deput^' Attorney
General.
We are unable to locate the original memorandum. A better copy of the file
copy of this memorandum is attached.
Item No. 12.— Copy of the file copy of a letter dated Jan. 27, 1969 to Mr. Harold
S. Geneen from Robert A. Hammond III, Acting Assistant Attorney General,
Antitrust Division, by John W. Poole, Jr., Attorney, Antitrust Division.
Attached.
Item No. 13. — Xerox of complete "original" of letter from Frank DeMarco to
Henrj- Peterson.
Previously supplied to Committee.
Item No. 14. — Xerox of "file copy" of letter from Henry Peterson, by John
Ke(>ney, to Frank DeMarco.
Previously supplied to Committee.
Item. No. 15. — Any notes, buck slips, and memoranda showing background of
Peterson letter to DeMarco.
None.
Item No. 16. — Xerox of any copies of Walsh letter to Kleindienst, other than
"original."
None.
Item. No. 17. — Chronology of ITT filings requested by Senator Burdick.
We are providing a copy of the docket entries maintained by the Department in
the ITT cases.
Item No. 18. — All Ramsden filings with the Commerce Department.
In i:)rocess of obtaining for review and determination.
Item No. 19. — Any written instructions to Ramsden, etc.
None.
Item No. 20. — Any memoranda or other material reflecting or relating to
Ranisden report on LTV case.
None.
W^e are withholding the remaining items requested on the basis that they include
confidential summaries, investigative reports and intradepartmental communica-
tions. If such materials are released, it would severely inhibit obtaining confidential
131
information and exchange of ideas and recommendations necessary to effectively
carry out the law enforcement policy of the Department of Justice and the
Federal government. This action is being taken pursuant to the long standing
policy of the Department not to produce documents of this character unless it
is shown to be in the compelling public interest. In this regard we wish to reiterate
Mr. Kleindienst's prior statement. "There is nothing in the material that we
have withheld from you that would tend to prove or have any relevant bearing
upon the charge that there was any connection whatsoever between the settlement
of the ITT antitrust cases and any payment by the ITT Corporation to the City
of San Diego in connection with the Republican Convention. I will make that
avowal vmder oath before you and this Committee and the public."
Sincerely,
L. Patrick Gray III,
Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division,
and Deputy Attorney General Designate.
March 24, 1972.
Jamks F. Flug, Esq.
Chief Counsel, Subcommittee on Administrative Practice and Procedure, Committee
on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.
Dkar Jim: Yesterday at approximately 3:00 p.m., we received the latest re-
quest from the offices of Senators Hart, Kennedy, Bayh, Burdick, and Tunney for
the production of documents.
This request was not contained in a letter from the Chairman of the Judiciary
Committee of the United States Senate requesting that these documents be
provided for the use of the Committee.
Upon receipt of such a letter, identif.ving the documents with specificitj^, we
shall respond as quickly as may be practicable.
Sincerely,
L. Patrick Gray III,
Assistant Attorney General,
and Deputy Attorney General-Designate.
Department of Justice,
Washington, March 23, 1972.
James F. Flug, Esq.,
Chief Counsel, Subcommittee on Administrative Practice and Procedure, Committee
on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.
Dear Jim: In accordance with our telephone conversation this morning, I am
setting forth my understanding of our previous verbal agreement relative to
inquiries to be made by staff members in behalf of Senators who are members of
the Judiciary Committee of the United States Senate, in connection with the cur-
rent hearing involving the settlement of the ITT antitrust case and the material-
ity of such settlement to the confirmation of Richard Gordon Kleindienst to be
Attorney General of the United States.
(a) All such inquiries are to be directly related to and material to the charge
that the ITT antitrust cases were settled in return for an agreement on the part of
ITT to contribute a sum of money to the City of San Diego in support of its bid
to host the Pv,epublican National Convention in the City of San Diego, California.
(b) Such inquiries requesting the production of documents in possession of the
Department of Justice should be contained in a letter request from the Chairman
of the Judiciary Committee addressed to me, stating with specificity the docu-
ments desired. The Department will respond as quickly as may be practicable
under the circumstances, and will either produce the document requested, or state
its reason for not producing such document.
(c) Such inquiries involving an interview with an attorney or an emploj^ee of
the De]Dartment of Justice will be handled in the following manner:
1. I will not instruct an attorney or employee of the Department either to
consent to the interview or refuse the interview. The granting of the interview is
a choice that the attornej' or employee is free to make unaided b^' any instructions
from me.
2. I will be informed, prior to the interview, of the name of the attorney or
employee to be interviewed.
3. The Assistant Attorney General of the division or office in which the attorney
or emplo3^ee is employed, or his designee, will be present at such interview.
132
You have requested my assurances that there will be no recriminations against
an attorney or employee of the Department who consents to an interview in ac-
cordance with subparagraph (c) above. You have my assurance that there will
be no disciplinary or dismissal action taken against any attorney or emploj^ee as
the result of the granting of such an interview unless' it shall become apparent
therefrom, or from information acquired independently, that such attorney or
employee has violated laws, orders, regulations, or ethics applicable to the conduct
of emplo3^ees of the Department of Justice.
The Department desires to cooperate fully and to the extent permissible under
the apphcable laws, orders and regulations, and constitutional principles governing
the conduct of the business of the Executive Branch of the Government.
Sincereh",
L. Patrick Gray III,
Assistant Attorney General
and Deputy Attorney General-Designate.
April 4, 1972.
Jamks F. Flug, Esq.,
Chief Counsel, Subcommittee on Administrative Practice and Procedure, Committee
on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.
Dkar Jim: This is in response to your letters of April 3, 1972.
In a telephone conversation witli you in the afternoon of March 23, 1972,
following your receipt of my letter of March 23, 1972, neither vou nor I agreed
that the letter was "totally incorrect."
In that conversation, I stated to you that I intended to distribute my letter
of March 23, 1972 to each Assistant Attorney General and the three Associate
Deputy Attorneys General, and I also said that distribution may have already
occurred. I assured you that I would recall the letter since yf>u and I apparently
did not have a clear understanding of one provision of "that letter regarding
the procedure to be followed in your conduct of interviews with certain Depart-
ment employees. Immediately upon the conclusion of my conversation with you,
I checked with my secretary regarding distribution. All copies were in my safe
with the exception of one. No others had been distributed at that moment and
no distribution has occurred since that time.
I told you I had sent one copy to vSenator Eastland. I also told you that I would
see the Senator the next day and tell him that vou did not agree with each pro-
vision of my letter of March 23, 1972. I did see him and I did tell him.
If your informant will advise you of the copy of the letter alleged to be in
circulation, I will recall that one unless it happens to be the one "delivered to
Senator Eastland. On March 24, 1972, Messrs. Wilson and Woodard were advised
that yt)u and I were not in agreement and regular Department policies were to be
followed.
This misunderstanding reflected in our correspondence and conversations tf)
date is evidence of the reason underlying my strong desire tf) conduct our business
in accord with the well defined policies of the Department. My letter of March 24,
1972 merely reiterates Department policy.
Sincerel}%
L. Patrick Gray III,
Assistan^t Attorney General,
and Deputy Attorney General-Designate.
April 7, 1972.
Hon. James O. Eastland,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.
Dear Mr. Chairman: On March 23, 1972, at approximately 3:00 p.m., I re-
ceived a list setting forth documentary materials desired by the offices of Senators
Hart, Kennedy, Bayh, Burdick and Tunney from the files of the Department.
There was no indication thereon that the list constituted a Committee request.
On March 24, 1972, I addressed a letter to James Flug, Esq. of Senator Ken-
nedy's staff stating that Department policy required that such requests be made
in writing over the signature of the Chairman of the Committee. A copy of my
letter is attached.
On April 6, 1972, at approximately 5:00 p.m., I was informed that the Com-
mittee desired to have the documentarj^ materials delivered to the Committee
not later than 10:30 a.m., April 7, 1972.
133
Included on the list which I received at approximately 3:00 p.m., March 23,
1972, are repeat requests for copies of documents previously furnished to the Com-
mittee in response to a direct request from you. These are described on the March
23, 1972 list in the following manner:
A. See Item No. 8 in Gray's March 17 letter to the Chairman. Notwithstanding
Gray's assertion that the requested document was "attached", a xerox of the "file"
copy was not attached. The only thiag that was attached was a xerox of some
other copy. We want a xerox of the "tile" copy, also known as the "records" copy.
It's the copy which is specifically earmarked for the Department's record or file
and customarily contains the initials of all reviewers.
B. See Item No. 10 in Gray's March 17 letter to the Chairman. In view of the
fact that the Department is "unable to locate the original memorandum" from
McLaren to the Deputy Attorney General, we need xerox copies of all cards
and/or mail slips and/or log records maintained by the office of Messrs. McLaren
and Kleindienst, and/or any other Justice Department offices including mail
rooms, which would reflect which offices received, transmitted, and/or were
addressees or transmittees of the original memorandum.
C. See Item No. 12 in Gray's March 17 letter to the Chairman. Notwithstanding
Gray's assertion that the requested document was "attached", a xerox of the
"file" copy was not attached. The only thing that was attached was a xerox of
iViahaffie's copy. We want a xerox of the "file" copy, also known as the "records"
copy. It's the copy which is specifically earmarked for the Department's record or
file and customarily contains the initials of all reviewers.
D. See Item No." 13 in Gray's Alarch 17 letter to the Chairman. Notwithstand-
ing Gray's assertion that the requested document was "previously supplied to
Committee", the Committee staff says they have not seen it. We have received a
xerox of the "original", but it appears to be incomplete in view of the excision
marking which appears near the upper right-hand corner. We want a xerox of the
complete "original."
E. See Item No. 14 in Gray's March 17 letter to the Chairman. Notwithstand-
ing Grav's assertion that the requested document was "previously supplied to
Committee," the Committee staff says they have not seen it. We have received a
xerox of the "original", which presumably came from DeMarco's files, but we
need a xerox of the "file" copy, also known as the "records" copy, from the De-
partment's files. It's the copy which is specifically earmarked for the Depart-
ment's recf.rds or file and customarily contains the initials of all reviewers.
H. See Item No. 18 in Gray's March 17 letter to the Chairman reflecting that
the requested documents were in the process of being obtained.
I. See last paragraph of Gray's March 17 letter to the Chairman refusing to
provide (1) the ITT settlement' file and (2) the Department's file on"Coldwell,
Banker". The request for these files is reasserted with respect to all documents, or
portions thereof regarding which the President has not invoked or is not prepared
to invoke Executive Privilege. Each document, or portion thereof, not provided
should be itemized with a description of its nature, contents, author, addressee,
and date.
In view of the fact that copies of some of these documents have previously
been provided to the Committee in response to a direct request from you, I am
pleased to make the following report:
A. No copy was made for or sent to Department "Files" or "Pv-ecords."
B. The orginal has been located and is enclosed. It is requested that a copy be
made and the original be returned to me.
C. We cannot locate a " File" or " Records" copy.
D. A xerox copy made from the original is enclosed. The original has been
returned to the Departinent of Justice files, and we are currently searching the
files to obtain the original. When we have the original in hand, it will be forwarded.
E. A xerox copy made from the original is enclosed. The original has been re-
turned to the Department of Justice files, and we are currently searching the files
to obtain the original. When we have the original in hand, it will be forwarded.
H. Delivered with Department of Commerce letter of March 23, 1972 to the
Chairman.
I. We are withholding the documents requested on the basis that they include
confidential summaries, investigative reports and intradepartmental communica-
tions. If such materials are released, it would severely inhibit obtaining confi-
dential information and exchange of ideas and recommendations necessary to
effectively carry out the law enforcement policy of the Department of Justice and
the Federal Government. This action is being taken pursuant to the longstanding
policy of the Department not to produce documents of this, character unless it is
shown to be in the compelling public interest.
134
Within seventy-two (72) hours after receipt of a request in writing over your
signature for documentary materials from the files of the Department of Justice
for the use of the Committee, a reply will be dispatched to you.
With my best wishes and warm respect.
Sincerely.
L. Patrick Gray III,
Assistant Attorney General,
and Deputy Attorney General-Designate.
Enclosures.
April 7, 1972.
Hon. James O. Eastland.
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.
Dear Mr. Chairman: In accordance with the statement made in my letter
of April 7, 1972 to you, there are enclosed originals of documentary materials
referred to in Items D and E on page 3 of my letter to you. It is requested that
copies be made and the originals be returned to me.
With my best wishes and warm respect.
Sincerely,
L. Patrick Gray III,
Assistant Attorney General,
and Deputy Attorney General-Designate.
Enclosures.
April 11, 1972.
lie request for documents involving U.S. Attorney Harry Steward of San
Diego, Calif.
Hon. James O. Eastland,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.
Dear Mr. Chairman: On Friday afternoon of last week, you caused to be
delivered to me a Hst setting forth seven documents requested by Senator Tunney.
You requested that these documents be made available to the Committee.
As you know, it is not the policy of the Department of Justice to release reports
of investigations conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The first
five items on the hst of documents are constituent parts of the final report of
an investigation conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and may not
be made available.
Items 6 and 7 on the list of documents relate to internal Justice Department
memoranda involving the subject matter of the foregoing final report of investiga-
tion conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and may not be made
available.
It is my understanding that you have requested that Honorable Henry E.
Petersen, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, appear as a witness,
and that Mr. Petersen will appear and testify before the Committee. I believe
that the testimony of Mr. Petersen will constitute a summary of the final report
of the investigation conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
With my best wishes and warm respect.
Sincerely,
L. Patrick Gray III,
Assistant Attorney General,
and Deputy Attorney General-Designate.
April 28, 1972.
Hon. James O. Eastland,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.
Dear Mr. Chairman: During the course of the proceedings before the Com-
mittee on April 27, statements were made concerning our failure to supply certain
materials to the Committee. These materials are the items listed under "Addi-
tional Materials Requested" in the list originallv supplied to me on March 23,
1972.
In my letter of April 7, 1972, the concluding paragraph was as follows:
"Within seventj^-two (72) hours after receipt of a request in writing over your
signature for documentary materials from the files of the Department of Justice
for the use of the Committee, a reply will be dispatched to you."
We have not received such a request.
135
Nevertheless, in view of the request made during the hearings on the afternoon
of April 27, 1972, I am pleased to respond to the request for each of those items
listed under "Additional Materials Requested" in the list of March 2o, 1972 as
follows :
J. No such steps have been taken. It has been a policy of this Department to
predicate the initiation of any investigation and prosecution of allegations of
criminal misconduct made before a Congressional Committee upon a referral
of such Committee to this Department with references to particular instances of
the alleged misconduct and requests for prosecutive consideration of those in-
stances. This policy has been found necessary in order for this Department to
take full advantage for prosecutive purposes of the evidence and knowledge
developed bj^ the Committee establishing the particular facts or circumstances
in issue. Moreover, we would not want to take such action without the full knowl-
edge, approval, and official sanction of the Committee. No instance readily
comes to mind in which the Department independently examined allegations of
criminal misconduct without prior referral b\^ the Congressional Committee
before whom the testimony was taken.
K. None. See response to item J.
L. We respectfully decline to respond to the request for these items for the
reason that it inquires into the Ijasis and background of advice and opinions
concerning Department and Administration policy. Disclosure of such materials
would make it difficult in the future tf) obtain the necessary exchange of ideas
and thoughts so essential to the proper development of policy.
M. See response to item L.
N. See response to item L.
O. See response to item L.
P. There are no such reports transmitted to the Attorney General and were
no such reports transmitted relating to the ITT cases.
Q. There are no such reports transmitted to the Deputy Attorney General
and were no such reports transmitted relating to the ITT cases.
R. There are none, as indicated in the responses to items P and Q.
S. A xerox copy made from the original is enclosed. It should be noted that
these lists d(j not necessarily include all visitors to the Department. The lists are
maintained by receptionists at two of the entrances. Persons having some form
of identification as Federal Government employees and persons accompanying
the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General are not required to sign the
list.
T. As indicated to you in my letters of March 17 and April 7, 1972, we are
withholding the documents requested on the basis that they include confidential
summaries, investigative reports and intra-departmental communications. If
such materials are released, it w^ould severely inhibit obtaining confidential
information and exchange of ideas and recommendations necessary to effectively
carry out the law enforcement policy of the Department of Justice and the
Federal Government. This action is being taken pursuant to the long standing
policy of the Department not to produce documents of this character unless it
it is shown to be in the compelling public interest.
U. This list was requested some time before the testimony of Honorable
Henry E. Petersen, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division. As you
know, Mr. Petersen's testimony covered this matter in great detail and constituted
in effect a summary of the final report of the investigation conducted by the
Federal Bureau of Investigation. As I previously indicated to you in my letter
of April 11, it is not the policy of the Department of Justice to release reports
of investigations conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation nor in-
ternal Justice Department memoranda involving the subject matter of such
investigations.
V. See response to item U.
With my best wishes and warm respect.
Sincerely,
L. Patrick Gray III,
Assistant Attorney General,
and Deputy Attorney General-Designate.
Enclosure.
Senator Byrd. Were you a^Yal•e of transmission by the chairman on
March 10, 1972, of the Dita Beard memorandum to the FBI through
the Justice Department?
136
Mr. Gray. I do not know that I was aware that the chairman
transmitted it. I was aware that it was there but I do not know how
I was aware of that. I cannot recalL
Senator Byrd. Were you aware of the transmission — there were two
transmissions, one on INIarch 10 and one on March 16 — through the
Justice Department to the FBI? Were you aware of either of these?
Mr. Gray. I am going to ask if I might provide that answer for the
record because I am not at all certain. I will have to look at the cor-
respondence and refresh my recollection and then answer 3^ou, Senator
Byrd, for the record.
(Mr. Gray subsequently submitted the following document for the
record :)
My jaersonal recollection is that there were two transmittals of the Dita Beard
memorandum to the FBI. The first one occurred on March 10, 1972 and the second
was on March 15, 1972. Upon checking internally within the FBI, I am now aware
of three transmittals of the Dita Beard memorandum to the FBI, the two men-
tioned above and a third one occurring on March 17, 1972.
Senator Byrd. Until it was returned to the Judiciar}^ Committee
was the Beard memorandinn at any time in the hands of anyone other
than the Justice Department courier or the FBI?
Mr. Gray. Yes, sir. I believe it was because I believe that sometime
during that period of time that memorandum was in the hands of the
counsel to the President.
Senator Byrd. Referring again
Mr. Gray. But I do not know how it got there. I would have to
check the record to be certain how it got there, but I believe this is a
correct statement.
(Mr. Gray subsequently submitted the following document for the
record:)
Upon checking the record I found that the Dita Beard memorandum was made
available to Mr. Dean, the counsel to the President, by me.
Senator Byrd. Would you also indicate for the record, whether the
memorandum of transmittal was directed to the FBI by the Justice
Department?
Mr. Gray. Would I indicate that for the record?
Senator Byrd. Yes.
Mr. Gray. Yes, sir; I would.
(Mr. Gray subsequently submitted the following documenc for the
record :)
Upon checking the record I found there was no memorandum of transmittal
of the Dita Beard memorandum directed to the Federal Bureau of Investigation
b}" the Justice Department.
Senator Byrd. Referring again to the interview between Mr. Hunt
and Dita Beard, did the FBI question Mr. Colson as to the purpose
of that interview"?
Mr. Gray. I do not believe that we did. I do not believe — you
mean, at the time of the ITT or the Watergate investigation, Senator,
which one are 3*ou referring to?
Senator Byrd. Well, if you were aware at the time of the
Mr. Gray. I have no present recollection of it and I am going to
have to refresh my recollection but I want to know which time 30U
are talking about, either the ITT
Senator Byrd. Well, in either case.
137
Mr. Gray. All right, in either case, we will furnish that information.
(Mr. Gray subsequently submitted the following document for
the record:)
After checking the record, I find that we did not question Mr. Colson as to
the purpose of Mr. Hunt's trip to Denver, Colorado, since there was no apparent
connection between that trip and the Watergate investigation and we were not
investigating the ITT matter.
Senator Byrd. Mr. Colson, according to the Washington Post,
Februar}^ 21, 1973, Special Counsel to President Nixon, said:
Watergate bugging figure sent Howard Hunt to Denver last March to inter-
view ITT lobbjdst Dita Beard, according to Colson's own sworn testimon.v.
Sources close to the Watergate investigation said Colson's testimony was given
in a secret deposition to Federal investigators during the Watergate probe last
year.
Mr. Gray. Was that a deposition for the grand jury?
Senator Byrd. I am reading from the paper:
* * * was given in a secret deposition to Federal investigators during the
Watergate probe last year. The Federal investigators did not ask Colson the
purpose of the interview.
1 am asking you whether or not the FBI questioned ]\Ir. Colson
as to the purpose of that interview.
Mr. Gray. I do not know 1 even knew about that interview because
1 think what j^ou are referring to. Senator Byrd, is a deposition for
the grand jury and we do not have access to that. Those proceedings
are secret until Judge Sirica releases them. We do not have access
to them but I will furnish to the committee the information that we
are able to obtam.
(Mr. Gray subsequently submitted the following document for
the record :)
As I indicated previoush*, Senator, when our Agents interviewed Mr. Colson
on August 29, 1972, concerning Mr. Hunt's travel, Mr. Colson said one trip
which he authorized Mr. Hunt to make was to Denver, Colorado, in connection
with the ITT matter. Our Agents did not question Mr. Colson about that trip
further since there was no involvement of the ITT case with the Watergate
bugging. We do not know what questions were posed to Mr. Colson b.y the
Assistant U.S. Attorneys who took a sworn deposition from him as that deposition
was for grand jury purposes.
Senator Byrd. What you are saying is that Federal investigators
maj^ not have been FBI investigators, is that correct?
Mr. Gray. That is correct, because I think that what is being
referred to there is the actions of the assistant U.S. attorney in making
his deposition for presentation to the Federal grand jury.
Senator Byrd. Would not the FBI think it important to know
how and wh}^ Mr. Hunt was tied into both the ITT case and the
Watergate case?
Mr. Gray. I do not know that the thought ever crossed our minds.
Senator Byrd. Wh}^ would it not?
Mr. Gray. Well, I just do not know that it did or it did not, I
am going to have to
Senator Byrd. It has crossed my mind.
Mr. Gray. Well, 1 did not know, you know, I did not relate that
way at all, because I did not know at the time that Howard Hunt —
you are reading from a deposition from a grand jury apparently,
that the Washington Post got hold of. I have not had access to that
deposition.
138
Senator Byrd. What I am sajdng is this, you were in the role of
decisionmaker at the time the Judiciary Committee was considering:
the nomination of Mr. Kleindienst.
Mr. Gray. That is right, and I did not know it at that time.
Senator Byrd. At the time apparently Mr. Colson sent Mr, Hunt
out to Denver to interview Dita Beard.
Mr. Gray. I did not know that at the time.
Senator Byrd. This is why I am asking whether or not j^ou knew
of this.
Mr. Gray. At that time Avhen I was
Senator Byrd. Back
Mr. Gray. No, no; 1 did not know that.
Senator Byrd. And would it not be important now to know whether
or not ISIr. Hunt was connected with both of these cases?
Mr. Gray. 1 do not know. 1 am going to have to review on that
because 1 cannot really see the tie-in of Dita Beard and Watergate.
1 am having trouble making that tie-in.
Senator Byrd. The tie-in is Mr. Hunt, No. 1, and Mr. Colson,
No. 2, of the White House. Mr. Hunt was emplo^'ed by Mr. Colson,
on the recommendation of Mr. Colson, and worked for the White
House.
Mr. Gray. 1 am going to have to see it and furnish it for the
record, because at the time of the ITT thing when I was making
those decisions regarding documents I had no idea that Mr. Hunt
went to Denver to interview Dita Beard.
(Mr. Gray subseciuently submitted the following document for
the record :)
Mr. Gray. After carefully reviewing this matter in my mind, Senator Byrd,
I must again respectfully state to you that at the time of the ITT matter involving
Mrs. Dita Beard, I had no knowledge of Mr. Hunt or that he had been sent to
Colorado concerning the ITT matter. We learned of this trip on August 29, 1972,
from Mr. Colson. The Special Agents handling the Watergate case could see no
relationship between Mr. Hunt's trip and the Watergate case and I still can see
no connection.
Senator Byrd. So, 30U did not know Mr. Hunt and you did not
know about the trip?
Mr. Gray. No, sir.
Senator Byrd. Did the FBI ever question Alfred C. Baldwin?
Mr. Gray. Yes, sir; we did.
Senator Byrd. Mr. Baldwin was an ex-FBI agent and an alleged
participant in the Watergate bugging case.
Did the FBI question Mr. William E. Timmons, Assistant to the
President for Congressional Relations?
Mr. Gray. I believe we did. I have already said, Senator Bj^rd,
that we will make available, for the record, the list of the witnesses
or list of the individuals that we interviewed at the White House and
the Committee to Re-elect the President. Let me see if I cannot find
that right here, who is it, Timmons?
Senator Byrd. Perha])s I should preface my cj[uestion by saying
that, quoting from the Congressional Quarterly,
The Washington Post reported that Baldwin told the FBI that memos de-
scribing wire taps and bugged conversations with in the Democratic headquarters
were sent to William E. Timmons, Assistant to the President for Congressional
Relations, RoVjert C. Odle, Jr., a former White House aide, who is now Director
139
of Administration for the Committee for the Re-Election of the President, and
J. Glen Sedam, Jr., who is Counsel for the Re-Election Committee. The charges
were denied.
}^Ir. Gray. Yes; and I think that certain!}'- is not in accord with
what Baldwin has given us and I do not know what Baldwin has
given the grand jury. Baldwin merel}^ said to us that he observed
memoranda being t3^ped b}- McCord to Odle and to Tiinmons but he
could not state that these related to his monitoring activities.
Senator Byrd. Did the FBI question Mr. Timmons or Mr. Odle or
Mr. Sedam?
Mr. Gray. Yes, sir; we did. We questioned Mr. Odle quite a bit.
We questioned ^Ir. Timmons on September 8, 1972, and Mr. Odle —
let me see if I can find it here — we questioned him on the 19th of
June, the 20th of June, 23d of June, 28th of June, 29th of June, and
the nth of July.
Senator Byrd. Was Mr. Sedam questioned?
Mr. Gray. Yes. Mr. Sedam was questioned on the 23d of June,
the 26th of June, the 18th of July, the 26th of July.
Senator Byrd. The Washington Post reported that Mr. Segretti
had named White House aide Dwight Cha]:)in as his contact in si>ying
and sabotaging of the Democrats. Did the FBI question Mr. Chapin?
Mr. Gray. We did question Mr. Chapin, but that information
from Mr. Segretti, I believe, comes from testimony that I should not
be alluding to here, Senator.
Senator" Byrd. Would it not be appro])riate then, Mr. Gray, for
you to supply the committee with the Watergate files before the
committee proceeded any further?
Mr. Gray. I made the offer, Senator B^^rd, earUer, to the committee,
that I would be, and I offer it. I made it in my statement, I was not
asked.
Senator Byrd. Yes; I was here when you did that.
Mr. Gray. Yes; you heard it.
Senator Byrd. And I think that is very commendable of you but
what I am saying is it might be well for the committee to proceed no
further until the files are supplied.
Mr. Gray. Well, obviousl}", I do not beheve that suggestion has
merit, Senator, and I must respectfullN" differ with. you.
Senator Byrd. So that the committee would not have to ■
Mr. Gray. I am here and I am prepared to answer whatever ques-
tions I can answer and if this committee has anj^ doubt at the con-
clusion of its hearings regarding m}- qualifications they should fail to
report me out. It is that clear to me.
Senator Byrd. I understand that.
\h. Gray. Sure.
Senator Byrd. There will be debate on that point. [Laughter.]
I understand the responsibility of the committee is as 3^ou have
stated it, and you stated it precisely. But so man}^ things need to be
supplied, I am just wondering if the committee ought not wait until
it is so supplied.
Mr. Gray. I do not think that many things need to be supplied and
I have a task force set up in the FBI which is ready to work in tra-
ditional FBI fashion and your answers will be provided. Senator, to
the committee.
Senator Byrd. Does the offer of the Watergate files include the
administrative files?
140
Mr. Gray. Wliat do you mean by the administrative files?
Senator Byrd. Buck slips, interdepartmental memoranda.
Mr. Gray. My offer this morning in my testimony, and I think the
record mil show it, is our entire file, ever3'thing.
Senator Byrd. Lock, stock and barrel?
Mr. Gray. Yes, sir. We are very proud of that investigation.
Senator Byrd. Does Mr. Ervin's argument with respect to selected
staff seeing these files apply to the Judiciary Committee also?
Mr. Gray. No, sir; I will not provide these files to selected staff
members. I have stated that I \nll make these files available to the
members of the committee and that I will put two experienced agents
with each member to assist the member, to respond to any questions.
We have a task force set up in the FBI to crank out answers and we
Anil deliver the product to the Senators.
Senator Byrd. The Senator from North Carolina this morning indi-
cated that he had many things to do, and in view of that fact he asked
you whether or not it would be agreeable with you if selected staff on
the Select Committee, which has been established here to investigate
the Watergate incident
Mr. Gray. No, sir; I do not want this done and I Anil change it.
I responded to a Senate resolution and the Senator from North
Carolina was quoting it to me and I said I was glad to comply with
the will of the Senate expressed in that kind of resolution. Senator,
I am making an unprecedented offer to this committee.
Senator Byrd. I am merely asking you whether or not that same
offer applies to the staff of the Judiciary- Committee?
Mr. Gray. No, sir; it does not.
Senator Byrd. Because we on the Judiciary Committee are just
about as busy as Mr. Ervin is.
Mr. Gray. I appreciate that and it is a very important consideration.
Senator Byrd. And I would find it extremely hard myself to take a
look at all of the raw material that you have on the Watergate case.
Mr. Gray. Yes; but, Senator Byrd, you have a lot of questions
there and your staff lias apparently helped in them and I am perfectly
willing — I told you I have a task force set up there to crank this
out — and we are willing to respond to your cpiestions.
Senator Byrd. But your answer is "No," mth respect to selected
staff members of the Judiciary Committee seeing these files?
Mr. Gray. That is correct.
Senator Byrd. While at the same time selected staff of the select
committee — —
Mr. Gray. Thej'' are two different situations because of a resolution
of the Senate. The Senate has expressed itself, and I feel that this is
something I ought to take a position on. You know, I do not know
what the position of the Attorney General is going to be, I just do
not know. I am up here talking.
Senator Byrd. I am merely asking you whether or not you would
offer to make the same offer to the Judiciary that you would make
to the select committee?
Mr. Gray. No, sir.
Senator Byrd. Did the FBI question ]Mr. Herbert W. Kalmbach^
the President's personal attorney?
^Ir. Gray. Yes, sir.
141
Senator Byrd. The files which you have offered to have the Ju-
diciary Committee study, would they include the field office files
on the Watergate?
Mr. Gray. Everything that the field office generated we have. It
all came in the teletype, this was a major special and everything came
here.
Senator Byrd. Did the FBI question Mr. Haldeman regarding the
cash fund maintained by the Committee for the Re-Election of the
President?
Mr. Gray, The FBI did not question Mr. Haldeman and no
lead was ever sent out to question Mr. Haldeman and no recommenda-
tion was ever made to me to question Mr. Haldeman.
Senator Byrd. According to Congressional Quarterly, "In a Wash-
ington television interview Mr. McGregor acknowledged the existence
of a cash fund maintained by the President's Re-Election Committee.
He said no part of the fund, no money from the fund, had been used
for illegal purposes and he repeated a denial that H. R. Haldeman had
authority to approve payments from the fund."
You do not think it would be worthwhile to question Mr. Halde-
man?
Mr. Gray. No, sir; because we in our interviews and our total
investigation had no indication that Mr. Haldeman was involved.
Senator Byrd. Have you had indications that other individuals who
were connected with the Committee for the Re-Election of the
President were involved?
Mr. Gray. I am sorr^^ We interviewed those for whom the leads
were sent out.
Senator Byrd. Wh}^ would it not be a])propriate to tr}- to determine
who authorized the payment from the fund?
Mr. Gray. We think we did determine who authorized the paj^ment
from the fund.
Senator Byrd. Wlio was it?
]Mr. Gray. We feel that, from the interviews we got, that Jeb
Magruder was the individuaLAvho allocated $250,000.
Senator Byrd. Did jou go beyond Mr. Magruder?
Mr. Gray. We talked to other people, the assistant U.S. attorne^^s
did, and the grand jury did, but I do not have access to the grand
iurv testimonv.
vSenator Byrd. Was information obtained from the national security
wiretaps given to Mr. Hunt and/or to Mr. Lidd}^ while thej' were
working at the "^^^lite House?
Mr. Gray. I am sorry, Senator Byrd, I missed the first part of that
question.
Senator Byrd. Was information obtained from, national security
wiretaps insofar as you know, in connection with the FBI wiretaps
given to Mr. Hunt and/or JNIr. Lidd}^ '\\'hile they were working at the
^Vliite House?
Mr. Gray. I do not know, sir.
Senator Byrd. When did the FBI question Mr. Lidd}^?
Mr. Gray. We did not get to question Mr. Lidd}^ because he is one
of the defendants and he would not talk to us.
Senator Byrd. The FBI did not question Mr. Liddy?
Mr. Gray. No, sir. We would have been happy to talk to any one
of those men, sort of hinted we would, but we never were successfuL
91-331—73 10
142
Senator Byrd. Did the FBI question Mr. Sloan?
Mr. Gray. Hugh Sloan?
Senator Byrd. Hugh Sloan, Jr.
Mr. Gray. Yes, sir.
Senator Byrd. When?
Mr. Gray. Hugh Sloan, Jr., former treasurer of the Finance Com-
mittee, CRP, Julv 17, 1972.
Senator Byrd. Did the FBI question Tom Gregory, the college
student engaged by Hunt to spy on Democratic presidential candi-
dates?
Mr. Gray. Yes. sir; we did.
Senator Byrd. When?
Mr. Gray. I do not have that date but I can furnish it for the
record. It was late in the year, though.
(Mr. Gray subsecjuently submitted the following document for
the record:)
Mr. Gray. Our records show, Senator, that Mr. Gregory was interviewed on
December 19 and 20, 1972.
Senator Byrd. Wln^ do you sup])ose it would be late in the 3'ear?
Mr. Gray. I know exactl}^ why it was late in the year because of
the fact that, of all the some 2,200 telephone calls that we had access
to, his was one of those that was not run down early in the game.
There Avas no other reason for it. I asked the same question of ni}^
agents and that is the answer they gave me.
Senator Byrd. Was the FBI aware, before the Watergate trial, of
the $199,000 i)ayment to Mr. Liddy by the deputy director of the
Committee to Re-Elect the President, Jeb Magruder?
Mr. Gray. Were we aware of it before the Watergate trial?
Senator Byrd. Yes.
Mr. Gray. Senator, I will have to check that. I do not know whether
it is — you see, I have access to some grand jury testimony but not all
of it. But I am ver^- reluctant even to discuss grand jury testimoii}^
because of the Federal rules of criminal procedure and I will ascertain
from our records whether we had it through our interviews or whether
it was grand jury. If it was grand jury and we have it, I will so identif}^
it to the committee.
(Mr. Gray subsequently submitted the following document for the
record :)
Mr. Gray. After checking the records, Senator Byrd, I note that the $199,000
paj'ment was not made by Mr. Jeb Magruder. Payment of money to Mr. Liddy
was authorized by jNIr. Magruder and Mr. Sloan made the actual disbursements.
The information about sums of money furnished Mr. Liddy developed in grand
jury testimony and, as I mentioned previously, I do not believe I should discuss
grand jury proceedings.
Senator Byrd. When Judge Sirica interrogated Mr. Sloan, Mr. Sloan
testified that the authority for the payment to Mr. Liddy b}^ Magruder
had been verified b}' Maurice Stans, the chief fundraiser for the Com-
mittee To Re-Elect the President, and checked out w4th Mr. Mitchell,
the committee chairman. Did the FBI pursue this lead?
Mr. Gray. Both of those men — I should not say both, it may not be
a complete answer. But that point was covered, denials were given to
us, I am sure, and I will actuall}'^ check the interviews and get the exact
information that we received.
143
(Mr. Gray subsequently submitted the following document for the
record :)
After checking the record I find that Mr. Stans was interviewed bj- the FBI four
times: Twice on July 14, 1972 and on July 5 and 28, 1972. On the last date he
stated :
He had no hand in political policj' making decisions and that he would receive
information from Jeb Alagruder that certain funds would have to be paid out for
various expenses at which time he would notif,y Mr. Sloan to make these funds
available so normal operating expenses could be paid for.
Stans became aware from general conversations that Liddy was assigned a
"Security Gathering" job and that certain cash disbursements would have to be
made available to Liddy. Liddy's "program" was already in effect prior to Stans'
arrival on duty with the Committee to Reelect the President and Stans was not
aware of any details concerning Liddy's "program." The only time Sloan ever
mentioned cash disbursements to Stans was when Sloan told Stans that Liddy
wanted to make a large cash withdrawal (date and amount not mentioned).
Stans referred Sloan to Magrudcr.
Mr. Mitchell when interviewed by the FBI on Jul.y 5, 1972, advised he had
nothing to do with the financial aspect of the Committee to Reelect the President
which was handled completely by Maurice Stans.
Senator Byrd. Did you ever discuss any matter relating to the
investigation of the Watergate aifak with anyone on the Committee
to Re-Elect the President?"
Mr. Gray. No, sir.
Senator Byrd. With Mr. John Mitchell?
Mr. Gray. No, sir.
Senator Byrd. Or with anyone from the White House?
Mr. Gray. Yes, sir.
Senator Byrd. Who?
Mr. Gray. John Wesley Dean, Counsel to the President, and I
think on maybe a half dozen occasions with John Ehrlichman.
Senator Byrd. Were any members of the Committee to Re-Elect
the President questioned about Mr. McCord or Mr. Liddy?
Mr. Gray. Yes, sir; thej^ were questioned. They w^ere asked.
wSenator Byrd. I onl}^ have about three or four more questions, and
I appreciate your patience and I certainl}^ appreciate the indulgence
of my committee colleagues.
When did you first learn of the FBI's entrance to the Les Whitten
case?
Mr. Gray. I would have to check the exact date but it could have
come to me once again through the teletypes as they come across my
desk and in discussions with the Actmg Associate Director, Mr. Felt.
Senator Byrd. All right. If you will indicate that and also indicate
from whom you first learned of it, would you, please?
Mr. Gray. Yes, sir.
(Mr. Gray subsequently submitted the following document for the
record :)
UiJon reviewing our records, I learned on 1/24/73, from information contained
in a teletype from our Washington Field Office that a Metropolitan Police De-
partment officer working in an undercover capacitj" had advised his superiors that
he had heard that Anita Collins and Hank Adams had been conferring with Jack
Anderson to buy documents stolen from the Bureau of Indian Affairs. This
teletype made reference to Jack Anderson's column which appeared in the Wash-
ington Post on 12/11/72, wherein he reported that his associate, Les Whitten,
had seen many thousands of the documents taken from the Bureau of Indian
Affairs Building. On the morning of January 31, 1973, Associate Director W.
Mark Felt informed me of the appearance of Les Whitten's automobile at the
residence of Hank Adams and of his arrest shortly thereafter.
144
Senator Byrd. Do you think that the case was properly handled
against Mr. Wliitten by the FBI agent?
Mr. Gray. Yes, sir; I do. On the basis of the information that we
have and on the authorization to arrest that we have from the assistant
U.S. attorney.
Senator Byrd. Did you specifically authorize the actions taken by
the agent?
Mr. Gray. No, sir; that is a detail that I would not get that far into.
Senator Byrd. When will you sujjply the information I have re-
quested that you said you would suppl3-, Mr. Gray?
Mr. Gray. When would I suppW it, sir?
Senator Byrd. Yes.
Mr. Gray. Within 48 hours.
wSenator Byrd. I have one final question. You indicated that the
FBI did not follow up political leads.
Mr. Gray. We did not ev^en — there were none even set out that
led into the, as the Supreme Court sometimes says, political thicket.
We did not get into that at all, and we looked at those statutes —
even when we got the first interview from Segretti, Ave looked at those
statutes to see. We did not, j^ou know, just ignore it. It was considered.
Senator Byrd. But you knew that Mr. McCord was involved in the
Committee for the Re-Election of the President when he was arrested?
Mr. Gray. I knew that at 3:45 p.m., Pacific Davlight Time, on
the 17th.
wSenator Byrd. If you did not follow political leads how could you
attempt to find out if CREEP was involved?
Mr. Gray. Well, once we knew w^ho Mr. McCord was we found out
where he was employed. He was caught in a very compromising
situation. He was a strong suspect of havmg committed a criminal
offense.
Senator Byrd. Mr. Chairman. I thank you.
I have no more questions at this time and I thank you, Mr. Gray.
Mr. Gray. Thank j'^ou, Senator BATd.
Senator Hart. Thank 3"ou, Senator.
Mr. Gray, Senator Tunney, in view of the hour
Senator Tunney. I \vi\\ wait until tomorrow.
Senator Hart. The Chairman indicated that we will adjourn until
10:30 tomorrow morning.
Ma}^ I ask, before we leave, which reflects that I am bothered by
your inability to respond yes or no to the question of whether Segretti
was shown FBI reports at the Republican Convention, you just told
Senator B^^rd that Segretti had been interviewed. Now, did you ask,
did the agent ask Segretti who showed him the FBI report?
Mr. Gray. We interviewed him. Senator, on the 26th of June and
he was before the grand jury in the latter part of August and I do not
know what the assistant U.S. attorneys asked him before the grand
jurv.
Senator Hart. Well, that was not ni}" question. What did the
Bureau ask him?
Mr. Gray. No; we did not go ask Segretti
Senator Hart. Why I am bothered is that it was a leadpipe criminal
action alleged in the news and it alerted you to call Dean m the White
House but nothing be^^ond that.
145
Mr. Gra^. No, sir; I made the decision, and I did not go beyond it
because I saw no reason to go beyond it.
Senator Hart. I was sent a note here that I cannot read, I think it
has to do with materials, vnth supplying materials.
When you supply materials, which I assume in the course of the
day have been asked for, and vou have indicated
Mr. Gray. Yes; I have answered several times.
Senator Hart. When you supply the materials could 3"ou do so in
cojiies so that each member would have them?
Mr. Gray. You mean, in response to questions, is that correct, j^ou
mean, questions asked?
Senator Hart. Yes.
Mr. Gray. And to which I said I will respond and supply the
material?
Senator Hart. Yes.
Mr. Gray. Yes, sir; we can do that.
Senator Hart. And if the captions on the materials that you give
us are not informative would you ask your staff to identify the page
in our transcript where the request has been made which produces
that document?
Mr. Gray. Yes, sir. But to do that we are going to have to have
the transcript and this may change my 48-hour promise, my 48-
hour commitment to Senator Byrd. I have someone here making
notes of the commitments that I am making so that we can begin
to go to work on it, but if it is desired that they be related to a page in
the transcript then I am going to have to request that I be permitted
to have the transcript and then go 48 hours from the time of receipt
of the transcript.
Senator Hart. I would not want to trim back your commitment
to Senator Byrd.
Senator Byrd. Mr. Chairman, I think that Mr. Gray should have
the transcript and I think the committee ought to have the informa-
tion that is being requested so as far as I am concerned, the 48 hours
is off.
Mr. Gray. All right, sh.
Senator Hart. Thank you. Mr. Gray, you have had a long day,
I know.
Mr. Gray. Thank you. I liave enjoyed every minute of it.
(Whereupon, at 6:30 p.m., the liearine: was recessed, to reconvene
at 10:30 a.m., Thmvday, March 1, 1973^.)
NOMINATION OF LOUIS PATRICK GRAY III
THURSDAY, MARCH 1, 1973
U.S. Senate,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, B.C.
The committee met, pursuant to recess, at 10:35 a.m., in room 1202,
Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator James O. Eastland (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Eastland, Kennedy, Bayh, Burdick, Tunney,
Hruska, Fong, Mathias. and Gurney.
Also present: John H. Holloman, chief counsel, and Francis C.
Rosenberger, Peter Stockett, and Thomas D. Hart, professional staff
members.
Tiie Chairman. Let us have order.
Senator Tunne}^
Senator Tunney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gray, I want to congratulate you, as others have, for having
been nominated b}^ the President to perform the awesome responsi-
bility of being the Director of the FBI. I personally feel that there
is no agency in Government that is more sensitive to a democracy,
one that can protect our democratic institutions, and, at the same
time, if it is in the wrong hands, could do more to undermine our
democratic institutions. I think we have been very lucky in this
countr}^ to have had a man of the stature of J. Edgar Hoover who
completel}^ depoliticized the FBI. I think if we all look back in history
and see what the state of the Bureau of Investigation of the Justice
Department was like, under a corrupt Attorne}^ General, J. Edgar
Hoover did represent a breath of fresh air. I would certain!}' hope
that his successor ^nll follow in that tradition.
Now, I would like to ask 3'ou a few questions that relate to your
political activities, or lack thereof. I would then like to get into some
structural questions with respect to tne FBI itself, such things as the
way you define organized crime, procedures that you followed, sur-
veillance, keepirg of records, et cetera.
With res])ect to the matters that were brought up yesterda}^ b}^
Senator Hart relating to Mr. Segretti, I coiddn't hel]) but feel that in
answering Senator Hart's questions you were sa3dng that there was a
significant violation of security if, in fact, the newspaper articles,
stating that Mr. Segretti had access to an FBI ?Ae prior to his being
questioned by the grand juiy, were true.
Is that correct, is my impression of your answer correct?
TESTIMONY OF LOUIS PATRICK GRAY III— Resumed
Mr. Gray. No, I don't think that I categorized it in quite that
language, Senator. I categorized it, I believe, as I recollect, as a
(147)
148
breach of trust or a breach of duty to the Chief Executive of the Na-
tion, if this, in fact, occurred.
Senator Tunney. If that occurred?
Mr. Gray. That is right. That is right, if this in fact occurred.
I think we also have to keep in mind, iSenator, and once again I
don't have the newspaper article in front of me and I am not exactly
sure of the verbatim allegations and I ahvavs like to be sure of verbatim
allegations so that one can respond accurately as well as adequately,
but assume, let us assume for the moment that this person Segretti
was briefed by someone on his interview with the FBI. He is being
briefed on what he said to the FBI anyhow, so I don't know how we
get a violation of law in there. No question about it in my mind,
certainly there is a breach of trust here.
Senator Tunney. Would it be appropriate under an}^ circumstances
for auA^one to take an FBI file which was given to them in confidence
for their eyes onh^ and turn it over to a third party, one who was a
subject of the investigation? Under any circumstances would that be
justified?
Mr. Gray. Well, first. Senator, Segretti was not a subject of an in-
vestigation. He was one of the man}^ people who were being interviewed
in connection ^vdth the Watergate. But to answer you specifically, you
know, I think you are as aware as I am that one of the most difficult
tasks faced by the Federal Bureau of Investigation is to maintain the
integrity of its files. I think that one coming lawfully into possession
of an FBI document and then disseminating it, making it known to
others not authorized to see those documents does, indeed 'commit a
serious breach of trust. That is the individual who comes into posses-
sion of it lawfully. On our documents we have all kmds of warning
language, and I, since coming into the Federal Bureau of Investiga-
tion, have been looking into our dissemination procedures because I
feel that it is indeed happening to us, either through deliberate at-
tempt, through carelessness, or through neglect.
The very fiber of our being is to be found in our files, and those files
are sacred so far as we are concerned. But we are plagued with this
problem and we have been plagued with this problem for as long as
the FBI has existed.
Senator Tunney. You see, that is the problem that I have with this
particular case. Did a'ou s])eak to the Attorney General about it?
Mr. Gray. No; I did not.
Senator Tunney. Did you con] plain?
Mr. Gray. No; I did not.
Senator Tunney. Did you complain to the President about it?
^Ir. Gray. No; I did not. It is not a thing that I would take to the
Attorney General or to the President.
Senator Tunney. Well, I believe that you testified yesterday that
as you perceived your responsibilities as Director of the FBI, you
re]:»ort to the Attorney General?
Mr. Gray. That isVight.
Senator Tunney. x4.nd you report to the President of the United
States?
Mr. Gray. That is correct.
Senator Tunney. And anything that you have available to 3-ou
should be made available to them?
149
Mr. Gray. That is correct. But I have a judgment, too, you know.
They are not gomg to let me sit in that position. Senator, if I go
running Avith every item over to them.
Senator Tunney. I understand that.
Now, insofar as presidential surrogates are concerned, do you have
a responsibilit}^, as you perceive it, to make available FBI investiga-
tive reports to White House assistants?
Mr. Gray. I don't know about — you are using surrogates now and
White House assistants. Who are we talking about? Are we talking
about those people who went out on campaign trails?
Senator Tunney. No.
Mr. Gray. Are we talking of men like Mr. Dean and Mr. Haldeman
and Mr. Ehrlichman?
Senator Tunney. I am talking about men who work in the White
House.
Mr. Gray. I am not going to make those available to everybody
who works in the White House but if jon are talking about counsel
to the President, if you are talking about Mr. Haldeman and Mr.
Ehrlichman, the answer to your question is "Yes."
Senator Tunney. Do you make anv file available to them that the
FBI has?
Mr. Gray. Upon specific reqviest from one of those individuals
acting as the agent of the United States, I would, and I engage in the
presumption of regularity which I think all of us ha^e to engage in. I
can't be the head of a bureau in a department of the executive
branch and say, no, I am not going to do this.
There are some things, some areas, about which I am very con-
cerned, and one of them happened in this case, and I testified to it
yesterday. The memorandum of June 19, 1972, that I refused to let
go, the memorandum to the Attorney General and the letter to Mr.
Haldeman — I stated those would be included in the record so that
Senators who are members of this committee can take a look at them.
Senator Tunney. Let us say Mr. Haldeman made a request of you
to see my dossier, would you feel that a^ou were justified in sending it
over to him?
Mr. Gray. No; not without asking him some questions and I
always do, because I have got a trust area and that is a battle of life
everyday. People put pressure on me all the time to take a look at
individuals' files and even where those people are concerned they have
to have a reason. I am very, very nasty about that, I really am,
because I feel very keenly and very strongly about that and I don't
like to be pushed around.
Senator Tunney. Well, I am sure that 3'ou don't like to be, you
impress me that way.
Mr. Gray. Yes.
Senator Tunney. But I would like to know what you would con-
sider to be a just reason for submitting personal dossiers to members
of the White House staff.
Mr. Gray. We don't do that in that frame of mind. Name checks
come over on individuals who are invitees to the White House and
this has been done from time immemorial. That is one way.
As applicants, that is another way that some Members of Congress
have previously been investigated by the FBI, because at one time
they were the subject of an applicant investigation. Still another way
150
is the rare occasion when a Member of Congress becomes involved with
the laws of the United States, and an investigation is conducted.
And let me just say for the record now — and I will not reveal the
information, but I will testif}^ under oath at this moment to trj^ to
persuade this committee — that during this campaign, information
was brought to me regarding an individual, and I said, "Never bring
that kind of information to me again, put it under the tightest lock
and key that we have and do not permit it to get out of that custody,
and don't ever bring that information to me again." I made that
statement but I will not reveal the name of that individual to anyone.
I would sacrifice this position, ^Senator, before I would do it.
Senator Tunney. Nor should you. I don't think you should either.
I think it would be very Mrong for you to do that. But I am trjdng to
get a better feel for what 3'ou feel to be the demarcations of policy
when 3^ou are requested by Wliite House staffers to make available
information in personal dossiers. I assume that there must be such a
polic}^?
Mr. Gray. When you put the question that way, I have never had
a request from anybody in the White House since I have been in this
i:)osition to make available information from a personal dossier because
I don't know really what you are talking about. If you are talking
about that summary memorandum that we prepared under the Con-
gressional Services Unit program, no, that would not be made avail-
able at all. That is com])letely for internal use ^nthin the Federal
Bureau of Investigation. If you are talking about an investigative file
that we have, if there is some reason to make pertinent information in
the file available where we have an inchvidual under investigation, yes,
I would do that. If there was some issue of truth or falsity involved in
that type of a case where there are allegations that have been made,
yes, I would pro^dde the information in order that there be a mech-
anism available for the President to get information and try to make
a judgment. But I would not send over purely personal information
that comes to our files in the form of anonymous letters, informant
information and that type of thing, and I just won't do it.
Senator Tunney. And you won't do it with respect to any person?
Senator Kennedy. Have you done it at all with respect to any
Member of Congress?
Mr. Gray. No, sir; I A\on't do it. I have set forth in the FBI pretty
firmly my policy about that. I don't think there is a member of the
FBI who is in any doubt about that at all.
Senator Tunney. Is this a personal decision that you have made,
or are there certain procedural guidelines in the FBI that were avail-
able to you when you came in as Acting Director that had been set
up by Aour predecessor?
Mr. Gray. They are not procedural guidelines as such. We have the
rules and regulations of the Department of Justice. We have the man-
ual of rules and regulations for the Federal Bureau of Investigation
regarding each of our jurisdictional categories in which we investigate
and the dissemination of re]:)orts that are to be made thereunder.
There are quite a few, but what we are talking about now is the un-
ethical, the hard, field type situation, somebody trying to cut some-
body up "VAdth some inside information, and I am not going to be a
partA" to that.
151
Senator Tunney. Could you tell the committee if there are any
guidelines within the FBI with respect to the accumulation of informa-
tion and the storing of information on individuals? For instance, I
think that you necessarily have to separate people who were under
an active criminal investigation
Mr. Gray. Yes, sir.
Senator Tunney (continuing). From those people who just happen
to be citizens.
Mr. Gray. That is correct.
Senator Tunney. Wlio happened to be participating, w^e mil sa}^,
in outdoor rallies or peace marches or whatever it might be.
Mr. Gray. That is correct, sir.
Senator Tunney. Could you describe to the committee what the
guidelines are?
Mr. Gray. Thej^ are not real]}- guidelines, they are jurisdictional
perimeters that are established bv the statutes of the United States,
and from the day that I came into the Federal Bureau of Investiga-
tion, one of the very first avenues of inquiry that I launched had to do
\nth jurisdiction because I knew this was a problem, and we had a
ver}", very fine paper developed on jurisdiction. We discussed it May
23 and ]May 24 at our Quantico meeting, and I have given explicit
instructions throughout the Federal Bureau of Investigation that we
investigate onlv in connection wdth our jurisdictional responsibilities.
Nov/ that takes care of us going actively after someone. But we
acce]:)t information of all kinds that comes in, and here it is the judg-
ment of the Bureau supervisor and the officials trained in accordance
with the Bureau's Manual of Rules and Regulations as to wdiether or
not to put that in the file. That would be a general file. That is not
the investigative file, and that is actuall}^ the wa}^ it w^orks. We get an
aw^ful lot of anonymous letters addressed to us regarding our own peo-
]i]e, and every one of those is followed through b,v the Inspection
Di\'ision of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. We treat ourselves
very roughl}' and, I think, rightly so because of our position in our
society, than we do with all this other mass of material that comes in
pertaining to j^ersons outside the FBI, and we i)ut it in the file.
Senator Tunney. Do you know how many names you have in the
files that you have dossiers on?
Mr. Gray. Senator, I don't use that word "dossier." You know,
every time you use it I am going to respectfully reserve the right to
say
Senator Tunney. I will not use it.
ISIr. Gray. I don't use the term ''dossier." I know what the dic-
tionarv definition is but we don't talk about it in terms of "dossier."
We talk in terms of "files."
Senator Tunney. Fine. [Laughter.]
Can you tell me how many people in the country have files:
Mr. Gray. I can tell you with regard to fingerprints. With regard
to our identification records, there are roughly 60,000 individuals
identified in our Identification Division and of those, roughl}' — I am
sorry, 60 million.
Senator Tunney. Sixty million.
Mr. Gray. Sixt}^ milhon, and of those, roughly 20 million are
criminal and the other 40 million are civil, and if I have got my
figures reversed, I will correct them for the record.
152
(Mr. Gray subsequently submitted the following document for the
record .)
Mr. Gray: Yes, these figures are correct. I have checked and as of February 1,
1973, 20,610,183 people were represented m our criminal fingerprint file and 40,-
143,023 people were represented in our civil fingerprint file.
Senator Tunney. Now, it is my understanding that —
Senator Kennedy. Forty million files on citizens?
Mr. Gray. No, sir; identification records.
Senator Kennedy. Noncriminal?
Mr. Gray. That is correct. Let me make sure, Senator Kenned}^,
now that 3^ou are raising it, that I have the right number. I have a
card on that here somewhere. We will give you the correct figure.
Senator Kennedy. If the Senator Avould yield, could you give us a
breakdoAvn on what the 40 million
Mr. Gray. I would be happy to do it because we have been meeting
with Congressman Edwards' Judiciary Subcommittee No. 4 and
giving them every bit of information that they want regarding the
Identification Division, the National Crime Information Center, the
com])uterized criminal histor}^, and I will give j^ou these numbers
right now.
Senator Kennedy. If the Sanator would jdeld, just on the non-
criminal. I would be interested and perhaps j^ou would submit the total
for the record. But could you give us the noncriminal 40 million
Americans that you have files on?
Mr. Gray. 40,143,023. Those are civil. Those come in all kind of
applicant type cards.
Senator Kennedy. Just break it down.
]Mr. Gray. That is it.
Senator Kennedy. Wliat is it?
Mr. Gray. 40,143,023.
Senator Kennedy. Tell us how many applications are for passports
and how many are being surveilled.
Mr. Gray. I will have to give you that information.
Senator Kennedy. Can j'^ou give it to us?
Mr. Gray. Oh, certain]3^
Senator Kennedy. Then give it.
Mr. Gray. I v^'ill give it to j^ou, I would be happ}- to.
Senator Kennedy. Does your assistant have it?
Mr. Gray. No, sir.
(Mr. Gray subseciuently submitted the following document for
the record :)
Mr. Gray: I am submitting the following document for the record. (Chart:
"Types of Fingerprints on File" dated February 1, 1973.) With reference to the
60,764,535 fingerprint cards representing the category of Governm.ent services,
I should hke to point out that included in this figure are 42,321,146 Mihtary
prints submitted by the various branches of the services, 17,529,220 Civil Service
applicant-type prints, and 914,169 Coast Guard prints. The category of Miscel-
laneous applicant cards consists primarily of applicant fingerprint cards sub-
mitted by independent U.S. Government agencies, such as Atomic Energy
Commission, Central Intelligence Agencj^ and the like in connection with employ-
ment applications and some applicant-type fingerprint cards submitted on
individuals employed in defense industries. These files do not contain fingerprints
of individuals seeking passports as we do not receive such fingerprints. Further,
these civil fingerprint files ai'e not utilized as a means of surveillance of the
153
individuals who are represented in this file. It is interesting to note that during
the last fiscal year (July 1, 1971-June 30, 1972) 13,640 individuals submitted their
fingerpx'ints for inclusion in our files for personal identification purposes.
M'lSW-U- l-l
...-.^.^-2^^.^^-:, r^^^i^^,^^- ■'^il'tlllifrlllii
TYPES OF FiNGERPRlNTS
ON FiLE
'I'll 1^ j^ jijj ^^J^i^^^Ll^l]■MJ■jHJV^^j^^y;^^^*ww'T?^^^i■iJ^!J^^^y^^■;s^»j^^^|■J]|^i^ll^)^^i^jJ^»(^i^ ■
TOTAL:
159,926,088
FEBRUARY I, 1973
luim
5.?7i,171
PEIiSOH.U
liiiKTiricvnoK
mmn
AUUS
16.711.535
^ HBliljg
CRIMINdS UNO
SUSPECTS
GdVERNMiNT MISCEUtNESUS
SEimCES APPlfCAHIS
(liclidiig Military) (InclDdin;
Delciisi letiustry}
ESTIMATED PERSONS REPRESENTED:
For th» 69,048,205 prtnts in the criminal fiU ...•*.
Fer th» rvmoining prints totoling 90,^77,883 all of wKich ore in the civil file
20,410.183
40,143,023
TOTAL ESTIMATED PERSONS REPRESENTED 60 75j 204
FBI IDENTIFICATION DIVISION
.aani
Senator Kennedy. You gave it to the Edwards committee.
Mr. Gray. Because they were right there in the Identification
Division, but I don't have those figures with me today. They came to
visit us, Senator Kennedy.
The Chairman. That inchides apphcations for Federal jobs; is that
correct?
Mr. Gray. All kinds of civil matters other than criminal matters.
Senator Eastland, and they could even be people who are being finger-
printed in States under State statutes, you know, for State employ-
ment or State licensing, that type of thing.
Senator Kennedy. All I am askmg is just for a breakdown.
Mr. Gray. I will give jou a breakdown.
Senator Hruska. If the Senator would yield just briefly, those
totals include fimgerprints voluntarily submitted by civilians who
wanted their fingerprints on file?
Mr. Gray. Yes; it does, Senator Hruska.
Senator Hruska. Could you give us a breakdown on that when
you give us the figures?
Mr. Gray. Yes, sir; I would. There are quite a few of those. Senator,
voluntarily submitted. One need — may I say, Mr. Chairman — one
need merely go through an aircraft disaster and see how extremely
valuable that fingerprint file is; that is just one specific example.
Senator Tunney. Mr. Gray, it would be my assumption that these
files would contain information that would be as scant}' as just a
154
fingeri:)rint, u]) to a voluminous file containing what informers have
told FBI agents about that jierson.
Mr. Gray. No, Senator Tunne}^, what I am talking about right now
that I gave you the numbers on are identification records represented
b}^ a fingerprint card.
Senator Tunney. I see; those are just the fingerprints?
Mr. Gray. That is right. Then in connection with that is developed
what we would call the arrest records and I would submit for the
record, as I submitted to the PTouse Judiciar}^ Subcommittee, materials
that will show you exactly what are contained in the Identification
Division. That is separate and distinct from the Files and Communica-
tions Division, and I welcome this opportunit}^ to explain this
distinction.
(Mr. Gray subsequent!}^ submitted the following document:)
Mr. Graj-: I am submitting the following document for the record (simulated
FBI fingerprint arrest file). You will note that the identification record itself
shows that Frank Jones has been hngerprinted five times. Appearing in chrono-
logical order on the record are the identit\^ of the contributor of the fingerprints,
LE«VE BLANK
TYPE OR PRINT ALL INFORMAT'ON IN BLACK
//(je rfofi/^ <^c/<;^d- >-</
IBl LEAVE BLANK
^^/7^/<^
STATE USAGE
f A
'-"'t ^' I""" Doa
/-i -A^-^r"
f^v;^ J-
£^^
0»1E IBStiTtC' Of 'ECE.-IP 00^
4f
Amz,
/D
j^cxc r^<, zi^.
u
LEAVE BLANK
^ U-O Wn W Q^Uf.
JJ-
• iNiL oiiro:.!
L srcuHT. HO SOC
1"
^
C»U'lClH
111
^.,|V ,
NCIC CLASS fPC
i I i ! M I I I j-m
' "^■"•^'
'm,.
0$i^
:z
l-fsaas^^fei-
1^'/"'-
#1 M
Vi-tfT «ix'» (iMceiT^TMt" i''i^T*M(oow> - ^ *!;V"\Vi
\.((T THVPUB
,;iJ|P|r
BI&HT>OtH fl-Cm TAKEH Ill*Utlli»«p01L» ^S-aJ-^
155
the name of the individual used at the time of arrest, the date arrested or received
at the place of incarceration, the charge and the disposition if available. Each line
entry appearing on every record is supported by a fingerprint card and the infor-
mation contained on the record was obtained from the fingerprint card which was
submitted by the arresting or receiving agency. The fingerprint cards are retained
in the individual's hie. You will note there are hve entries on the identification
record and only four fingerprint cards in the file. One fingerprint card, in this case
that submitted by the DC Court of General Sessions, Washington, D.C., dated
2-10-66, is filed bj- fingerprint classification in the criminal searching file. In-
coming fingerprint cards are searched by fingerprint classification against this file
in order to effect identifications and gain access to fingerprint records such as this
simulated record which I have presented. Also contained in this simulated record
is a sample disposition form which we furnish to every fingerprint contributor for
the purpose of reporting final dispositions to us. The only t3-pe information re-
tained in this file is obtained from fingerprint cards or related fingerprint forms
such as the disposition sheet. These fingerprint files are completely separate and
distinct from our investigative files.
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTiCt
WASHINGTON, D C 20537
PHOTO AVAIL,
A=U> [-J [— ]
IF AVAILABLE, PASTE PHOTO OVER INSTRUCTIONS
IN DOTTED AREA
(00 MOT USE lT*PLEil
VNCE PHOTOC««PH uir BECOuE OCTkCHtD IMCMOTE NAME.
DtTE TAIEM, FBI hUuBER CONTRIBUTOR AND AftRElT HUuBER
Om bE'ER^E l'0(. »HETMER *IT*CMtO TO (IhCERPRIMT C'RDOI
iuB-iTTriii.»ita.
IF ARREST FINGERPRINTS SENT FBI PREVIOUSLY AND FBI NO UNKNOWN.
FURNISH ARREST NO DATE
STATUTE CITATION isee .hitruct-ox mo »i C(T
2.
3.
ARREST DISPOSITION iiE£ ihiuuctiOm mo ii ADN
EMPLOYER: IF u. i coverk-emt. imoicaie iPtciFic acemct
IF MiLIT*RT. LliT BBiMCM OF SERVICE IHD itfilAL NO.
INSTRUCTIONS
, UMltSJ OTXtRBISE PffO'lOEO BT RECULkTiQN IM TOU* tT«T; f\>*'A«r
*BE TO ei luewiTTEO OiRtC'LT TO FBI iCENT'FiCaTicm D'vli'ON FOR"»l
MEr'UFL* FOR -OH EFFECTIVE StH'iCE.
IMSEi
■ ARRFl'
IMTI ytouLO BE
T) OX SAME CHABCt IhOULD MQT BE 5U8"i"f El B'
C Art" :
Ti^e
iCSMClEi KJCM »i
■LI HECEtnMC ACEMClEV ETC.t. REOtltlT C0P^£1 0« FB' iDEMTIFiCiTiOw REC-
ORD FOR AIL OrwER IMTEREITEO ACEMCiEi 1^4 BLCC^ B*-0" WE CO-^LdE
UA'LINO AOOREil IMCLUO'mC ZIP CODE.
, TYPE OR PRIMT ALL tMFDRu4TI0M.
. MOTE AuPolAllOKS iW PRO°FB FIMCE» BLOCKS
. LIST i^iNAL OtlPOMTlOS IN PLOCK OM FROMT ii3E IF NOT NO* AVlrLABLE, lUB-
Mi? LATER 0'( FBI FORu R-S-; F0» Cf'*'LETICN OF RECORD I' Fi1»L OISPOM-
TiOM Mm (ViiLABLE «<0" PaE-THi»L OB leCE'.T^NC ACEMC OllPOMTlOM «. «..
eELE»5EC. MO FORMAL CH»CCE, EA'L. TJHMEO 3*ER TO. tN TfE AR»EIT CliPOSL
TlOM bLOCK PROVIDED CM THI& WOE.
E CER'
'REiMOMS ABE LEC'3LE FoLLT ROLLCOAmO CLASKFUBLE.
, CAUTIOM - ChECH P0> OM FPOHT IF C*tJTl9M iT»I£MEH» IMl?tC*TEO. BAllS FOR
CAUTiOM (ICOl MUST r.ivt REAJON FOS C«liTIOM .. ... AP-EO AMO OAMCEROUJ.
lOICIPAL. E.-:.
MIICELIAMFOUI ML'MBEP ("MUI ■ IKOULO IMCLUOE VCN MUuBERl »i MtLITART
iERVlCc. PAISKORT AMC/OB "tTtBANl »0UIMIIT«»T(0N llOEMTIfT TYPE OF MUu-
FROI'IOE ITATUTf; CITAtlOM. lOEMTIFTINC SPEC'FIC ITATUT! Iit.-e't - PL •••
PENAL L*"l »MD CRIMINAL CODE C'TATIC"* WCLUOiMC ANT lOB-iECTiONl.
If ORUATION REOUCITCP IS EM(NT>
OCCUPATION
^±/£j_^dLk±^
RESIDtNCE OF PERSON FINGERPRINTED .
SCARS, MARKS, T((tioos. ano amputati/Sns sm;
SEND CCPY TO;
BASIS FOR CAUTION ICO
DATE OF OFFENSE 000
MISC. NO. MNU
SKIN TONE SKN
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
■0-249 (REV. 4 26 71) CCPOiieTl 0-437-611
REPLY DESIRED' YES NO
□ □
(BI-PLT WILL BE SENT IH ALL CAIES 'r SUBJECT ftiUfD TO fl£ •
TELEP.ICNt REFl
TELEPMOME MO, *«0 APEi
□
LEAVE BLANK
LEAVE B:.ANK
156
Senator Tunney. Well, now with respect to the Records Division,
where you keep fuller information than just the fingerprints, how
many files do you have there?
Air. Gray. I don't have that figure offhand. We will have to provide
it. There are a substantial number of files.
(Mr. Gra^y subsec[uently submitted the following document:)
As of March 1, 1973, there are 6,426,813 files.
Senator Tunney. Now, to what extent is this information stored
in the National Crime Information Center data bank?
Mr. Gray. This is very, verv complicated. The National Crime
Information Center itself as of February 23, 1973, active records in
the NCIC data bank are as follows: stolen securities, 1,331,099;
stolen vehicles, 782,983; stolen articles, 616,123; stolen guns, 572,232;
computerized criminal history subjects — now here we are coming to
irA'.v BLANK
TYPE OR PRINT ALL INFORMATION IN BLACK
Co/,
<e >i,j.iA , c/a
'k
iO.
™ LEAVE BLANK
• /■/
- r-
K»,0<- « -,t-
/^- i^ -3)
DCfl eitt 'EO 00 A
rf^v
HCH*1U«€ 0' Di ',C •
r-'^-'-r
t.
/7*-yneJ^ noke^i-y
'■•o CCA
i^\ 6' Vjo <g.
e-
^dik
LEAVE BLANK
yy ^'
fi«.. O'l'Oiit.OM
_9Miii,MiiiiMimmi>ia
li..J—i .1 i.iLiiMTiwiiLi
NCIC CLASS fPC
'^■'^\
WK
'""^ '■""^S^ - '^^^^^f^,Z^^~'^.-~.^ii;^
'- --5%.;/;»VK4.
i i rr
4
-\
sise^ -•-'^^*?i!-- »v-r^
^:?'^m^am:i.
\-
^M(,;..^-
M
■ *',«.-
-?S-y.
iW
m
!fe
:--s?^.v--
i ^ ':'/
\ -
^'
E r FOUA F H EVS'TUfN lH*JLTtMECNjH.>
^^F^
. V^^""'
BIGHT IHU'3
BICMT rou* FiN&EKS TAKEM JIMILTWEOUILT V ~
157
people — 288,207; stolen license plates, 222,976; wanted persons,
123,358; stolen boats, 6,490; and the grand total is 3,943,468.
Senator Tuxxey. \Miat is the statutor}' authority for the National
Crime Information Center?
Mr. Gray. That is the Federal statute wliich charges the AttorncA'
General of the United States to maintain and keep such records, and
it is, I think, section 534; but my memory may not be correct, I can't
remember the title, but we can certainly submit that for the record.
(Mr. Gray subsecjuently submitted the following document for
the record:)
Mr. Graj^ The authority for operation of the XCIC is derived from Title 28j
Section 534, U.S. Code, which provides:
"(a) The Attorney General shaU —
(1) acquire, collect, classify, and preserve identification, criminal identifi-
cation, crime and other records; and
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
WASKINGTON, D. C, 20537
IF AV.>.LJ3L£. ?53"= s-'OTO 0VE5 INST^LCTCIS
IN OOTTEO aB;«.
SINCE PMOTOCBiFW ii»» BECOMC OITlC^f P isaCiTE IPA-E
O.TC T»«EM, feiMW-eER.CC-BiWToa MtOneBESTwuwBE*
OM BEvEPVE VPE *METM£« *tT»c«E3 10 Fll«.EB«l»*r C*B3 W
W6MITTE3 V*TtB.
IF ABBE5T flNSERPONTS SENT ^Bl PKr.lOL'SLY AND FBi NO UNKNOWN
FuflNlSH ARREST NO _ OATC — —
STATUTE CITATION Iti Hia*,!: o*-u '. CIT
1.
2.
3.
IBE IC »E iU»»'T-SO 0-JECn.T TO FBI OEjtTinc»r«. otBiuw. FaB»»ao m,
UEOIBTELT FOB i*3iT EFFtCTI*E JEBviCE.
!. FWOEBPBIKIS SNWLC BE SUB^'TTEO Bt iBBElTiwC kZ-l^d Qnlt 'uutTl^t
PBWT5 0- IWE CH*BtE MlW-'LOj^ BF WBu tTEO 8t OTkEB iiEWCtEt UKK »1
J*1L; BFC'ivtNT iCENCiES ETCJ tEIt-EIT COBrEi OF Fa: IBEIFTIFICBHOFF BEC
OBC FOB ALl OIHEB INIEBESIEO .OB>l.lE> IK BLOCT SEIO". a»E CO-PtEtl
M»'L:J«C*OCBEii INC'.UCIKC ZIP COOE.
I, TTBEOB BBlllT »LL IMFOBMAT-Ct*
I. HOU JOiruTiliWlw BBOBCB FwCEB BLOCtt
I uiF FIKAL DilWJllFlO" i- BtOCl ON FBONT HCE. IF M*T «» Avhl»8LE. SUB-
MT IB7EB OH FBI 'OBm B-F; FOB C3-FLfTIOI CF BECOBD IF Fih»L OUnU-
TON NOT BTIILIBLE »IO- PBE -BIFl. OB BBBE^TINC »0ENCF WS-OHTION... ,..
BELEASE). NO FOBN»L CHiBCE Sill TOBNEO OvEB TO m TNE »BBEiT OliBOM.
TICBI BLOCK FBO'lVtO ON tnil WOE-
i. HBFE CEBTI
iBBEiSiWi »BE LEOiBlE FuLLT BO'.tEO bnB CLBlilFlBBLE.
ARREST DISPOSITION !■! -
3^
>-5-
OCCUPATION
RESIDENCE OF PtaOON FiNGEfiPRihTED
SCARS. MARKS. TATTOOS. AND AWP'JTATIOhS SV.T
BASIS FOR CAUTION XC
C*UTD» - 0£C« M* W *90«T 1* C*U»'(W JT»TI
C>UTiOM nCO' **1T CJ*£ ttiiO" F9« C*UTI»«, •
ICICCIL ETC.
-ISCELLAWECUI KU-BIB Omrj} - WtUlD IXCLUBE WJCM »iU-«IBt »i mH.iT»«Y
lES'iCe, P*1S«>IT *HtVO« vjTEilMti »OMimSII»*TW< llOfKTtFT TYPE OF MOM-
rnrmt jtivjte cit4tk^, iBEttfiFttNC vtonc statuti t.«-»i. - pl (••
f £>.»L L«r; M.& C«i«W*l. COOE CIT*IKW idCLUC-C U*1 SUiiECTlOni.
4LL tN'CSxiTIOK R(0(JEST«0 '1 ElSH^Ti
ZifiO COPY TO
REPLY DESIRED'
□ □
iBEFLT Wiil. ^E iENI IM tlL OiE J '= SuSjECT 'Ouvp TO BE -».«<TESi
(F COLLECT wise OB COILECI Tti.£PH5Ht »*PL'
reVBEO. mWCATEMEKE ITIREIESTOH tU. U-X^hO^ 3ECE»tE5i
WBE R'PLT TELEPHOHE BEFLt TELEPMOHt i-O ^"0 »»€* COBE
DATE OF OFFENSE
DOJ SKIN TONE SKH
leAVE 31ANK
MISC. NO. mm;
ACS TIONll INFGRMATICN
UAVE 8L«m<
F0-2B9 IREV. 4 2e 7;>
CFO : ler: O - 437-Sll
91-331—7;
-11
158
(2) exchange these records with, and for the official use of, authorized
officials of the Federal Government, the States, cities, and penal and other
institutions.
(b) The exchange of records authorized by subsection (a) (2) of this section is
subject to cancellation if dissemination is made outside the receiving departments
or related agencies.
(c) The Attorney General may appoint officials to perform the functions
authorized bj* this section."
In addition, with respect to the dissemination of criminal history records,
Title II of Pubhe Law 92-544 states:
" * * * The funds provided for Salaries and Expenses, Federal Bureau of
Investigation, may be used hereafter, in addition to those uses authorized there-
under, for the exchange of identification records with officials of federall.y chartered
or insured banking institutions to promote or maintain the security of those
institutions, and, if authorized by State statute and approved by the Attorney
General, to officials of State and local governments for purposes of emplo3-ment
and licensing, any such exchange to be made only for the official use of any such
official and subject to the same restriction with respect to dissemination as that
provided for under the aforementioned appropriation * * * "
Senator Tunney. To what extent is the information verified before
it goes into the bank and to what extent does it go in in raw form?
Mr. Gray. As far as the computerized criminal histor}' is concerned
that is an entirel}^ new concept that we are developing as a subsidiary
LEAVE BLANK
TYPE OR PRINT ALL INFORMATION IN BLACK
IkW KMt NAM Fl«lt -»-f -PHI
rurkef. /^d.t^.
4^^
OT<^ <. <,
LEAVE ULANK
.?^^-9>v-C
S1AT£ USAGE
il-J^il.
.'I Of 8i*'« OOB
iJL^2±^L^Jil
f Bt CO-»Li'l«.
!r^!fZf2
2L
fy
<S/-
Pi.ct oc out" POB
Asiyj'T
LEAVE BLANK
-** '
//
f -XL. D<1^0ilII0N
NCIC CLASS Fcr
r^" I I ' I ' ! ^ ' ' ' ' ' I '
4F'^-^^
m
I. „;;;..„.,
CGWi artJoLt
|.li«T IIl«C
'"'*
fiSsS^s:^;^
. LcrT^rWH*-: -y ^
tTiaWV'y'"
if^:? J.--'-
'-//Ay^svf:>,
,:&„^a^^^
y
P% IT
"W^
159
under the National Crime Information Center .We are developing; that
in conjunction with law-enforcement agencies throughout the Na-
tion. We have an Advisory Policy Board made up of senior law-en-
forcement officials from the various regions who are elected b}' the
members of the law-enforcement community in that particular region,
and they come in and meet regularly and establish policy. And in the
computerized criminal history, abcut which I will submit detailed
documentation for the record to show you what this really is and ex-
plain it to you, we have some rather tight and stringent standards
that do not exist today in the manually operated sj'stem. You have
to think in terms of our Identification Division which I discussed a
little earlier, which is all a manual system; you now have to think in
terms of a computerized criminal history system which is computerized
and is over in the Computer Systems Division and there are very,
very tight standards for the insertion of information into a compu-
terized criminal history. This is not the drop-in type of thing. John
Doe wTites us and sa3-s that somebod}' is doing something and we-
throw it in a file and forget it. This is not that type of system at all.
This is a system designed and geared to accuracy.
Let me go to the specific question that you asked which is one that
the Bureau has battled with for a long, long time. You really are talking
about the record of dispositions in cases, the arrest record. You take-
a look at an arrest record of an individual. The far right-hand column
is the disposition column. Wliat jou are interested in realhr
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
WASHINGTON. D. C, 20537
PHOTO AVAlLASLfr
n □
WSTHUCTIOMS
IF ARDEST FtNCEWPRINTS SENT FBI PREVIOUSL* AND FBI fW UNKNOWN,
fURNISM ARREST NO ^ DATE
3 piHctiriwii inoiji.t> •! y.t
riiHllOHlw.t <nt«C( tXOULOIO^^K VUtMTKOI' 01
f»-n •ic€i'i»c «c(x:>ii t'c > •twjfji to»'«o» »i
OIB tot <lk.L CTHII IHTOIlTtO ICCHOIl IH •IK* •
HiillMClDetftS, iHCl,UOrB& Iir CODt.
]. TtPIOI MlHT aVl IHrO>H*TIOH.
*. HOti ii«njT*ii»>i iH non* "Hcr* ■loch
DOTIXCATIWItC
0> CJTI COifLirt
STATUTE ClTATiON iift .■iiucieH -0 •! CIT
3
' c*uT«H com toi 0" •■
C1U1«M <iCO< MVtT ClX *l
HI1CI0»1 lie.
1 -BCtLlUiKOUl (.UMBtf OW
5(«»ic( p«iiP3<T uiwon
'IHtL Lt*l IMS CCIHIKAk. CO
XT If OUI-OH tltTtiiEHT iHOicmo a>t<i rcM
410H lot CtUtlOM .. (. *aillD MO OANCItOUJ.
ARRtSI DISPOSITION >iti i-i<«uc>tox hl ^> ADN
Ill WCl-LO IMClimi HJCM UUNBttt M t-LITWW
IT(«4H1 IDMIIItraotlON flOOlllfT TTfl OF mt.
t. «l.-.». I'll *I..CM O: Iti'iCt MO ilfi.L -0
lOtxItfTIHC WlOftC IT»TW>« l.»»J. - n. 1..
t CiTlTIOH inCLUMM wn MIMCTKML
OCCUPATION
SEND COPT TO
nCSIDEMCC or person riNCERPRINTEO
SCiWS, W*RKS TATTOOS, ARD AKPUTATtONS SWT
REyLY DESIRED' YES
__^^^^__^^ a^
NO
□
«]ICI FOl-HP to (t ■IHTMI
'□' '"□"""
-(■ir-ir
B*5tS FOn CAUTION ICO
(u unoio"" fitciuaw.
lEiTPMOHf «o. MD mm ••«
BATE OF OfFtnSE DOO
SKIN TONE SKN
LEAVE BLANK
Wise Ita. WfjU
f D M9 Wn. *4t 7U • OP* : 19T1 0 • «
INFORMATION
I-tH
LEAVE BLANK
160
is what lias been the disposition, and we don't know the percentage of
those entries unthout disposition. What we do know is that we, and
the enth-e law-enforcement communit}", have been working mightily
to insure that dispositions are submitted and that we have disposi-
tions, and when we send out an arrest record it contains information
that advises the recipient to clieck with the originating law-enforce-
ment agency for any questions about this because what" we are, Sena-
tor, is a repository. But we do have some policy exhortations that we
make, and this is one of them, to get the dispositions in.
Now, within the National Crime Information Center are elements
in the criminal justice system that eventually will have a terminal so
that when an individual has a court disposition that court will come in
with that disposition, the correctional institution that receives that in-
dividual will come in with that fact, the parole and probation system
that receives that individual will come in with that fact. That is a
long way down the road, but that is what we are working for in the
manual system.
(Mr. Gra3- subsequently submitted the following document:)
By way of background the Attorney General of the United States on December
10, 1970, authorized the FBI to develop and implement a program for the inter-
state exchange of criminal history records through the National Crime Information
IE«VE 9l«NK
TYPE OR PStNT AIL INFORMATION IM 3LACK
15! LEAVE BLANK
S^<^^7^-C,
Kit f*-^t-i<y< ^ -
;-.-jt ;p T.-Ei.:: r>r,A
Jtfr-U
tiOATuGt 01 &)flL>ft
i'.(,t»«ih'i
'7->9'i.Y'~ \a,\IA '(>' Mi^Vg.Vu.
u
^^^yU^TC -^ ^~'-' f
EAVE UL«NK
/> , ^^
IM*L OIl^tlTlOM
^sIDZlIII
l^^fwl ,
NCIC C A J5 FfC
m-r-rrrrn-m
rf/«f/sa^%..
-ii^t;
-%^ t"
;;;^Si,
*' V
10 Iff KtiLt
iflissm
#
' TT"' — ;■ Tj
Hs^^
^
161
Center (NCIC) which operates a telecommunication network over dedicated
lines to criminal justice agencies in each of the 50 states, 32 metropolitan areas
and some Federal agencies.
The Computerized Criminal Historj^ (CCH) File is now one of the eight files
in NCIC. The other seven files relate to wanted persons and stolen property. The
purpose of CCH is to speed up the criminal justice process. A more rapid ftow of
criminal offender information can bring about more realistic decisions with respect
to bail, sentencing, probation, and parole. For over 4S years the FBI has been
exchanging criminal history information with police, courts, and correctional
agencies in the form of the criminal identification record using the United States'
mails. The NCIC system offers a more efficient and effective means of handling
this essential service. Statistics have demonstrated that our crime problem is
substantially the criminal repeater. Our police, prosecutors, courts, and correc-
tional agencies need to know the complete, up-to-date ci-iminal history of an
offender if they are to arrive at intelligent decisions.
The ecu record is segmented to include identification information concerning
the individual, as well as available and significant data concerning arrests, court
dispositions and custod3Vsupervision status changes following conviction.
The ultimate concept of NCIC is that there will be a national index to criminal
history records of individuals arrested for serious or significant offenses. FBI
studies have shown that about 70 percent of rearrests will be within the same state;
therefore, an offender criminal history file, in scope and use, is essentially a state
file and a state need. There is, however, substantial interstate criminal mobility
which requires sharing of information from state to state. A national index is
required to coordinate the exchange of criminal history data among state and
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,
WASHINGTO
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
H. 0. C. 20537
PHOTO AVAILABlEf
□ □
tF AVAILABLE. PASTE PHOTO OVER WSTHUCTiONS
m DOTTED AREA.
(DO HOT UlE ITA.F'LEtl
VMCt PKOTOtBiPM H*r BtCPM( OtT/CMtO IWDCC«tt MtMt,
DltE T*t[H. rei NU>-BER CONTVittJTOH Jk-tD IK^EST Hllii«FI»
OX RE'teiE tlOE ntETHE* «TriCHCD TO FIMCEIPSiHI CUD 0«
UftHiTTED LITtl.
IN3TPOCT?0*<S
uvLlil OT^tfroiiF PBO-iDjc BT »*ct;L*Tic" in TOui st»ri rmcttftiMTS
»RE TO »E Sl'Bi-TTtC L.BfCTtT IC t6l IptMTIF'CHIO!* WOllOt*. FOK>*ltO M-
MfWitrLT rp» HCiT F»rec*ivE i'Kvict.
, FIKCIffStKTJ XDULP St WiewiTTED FT ABKCSTIWC AygtC* 0M1.T fHULTlPLF
FDIH'il OM Uvt CKtCSr IHOOLD MQT eF ^USMTTt) B* Zr.itt AGtWCICl WCM it ,
ja'Ll KtCtlviNC. »C.*»*C'E1. f TC ' «?OUeiT CO^ltJ OF *»t rMM-inC»T(OM lie-'
013 F0» »l-. Olt*!* IHTtBt'TCD AtEKCiei m "LOCI ilLW. SI'C COMnnC
w*.iI;NC «3DaE» tNCLUDIMC 11^ CCOt,
rF APREST FINGERPRINTS SENT TBI PREVIOUSLY AND TBI HO l-N'<fOWN,
FURNISH ARREST NO D.'.TE
STATUTE CITATICi^ iKe iwtTsucTiON mo ii CIT
1.
2.
J.
ARREST DISPOSITION lUE ihstrucT'Ommo. :>) ADW
EMPLOYER: iF u s oo-jfu-e"' iHDiCiTi specific .cjxc.
IF MILIWrT, KiT 6>[iMCH OF ilFv\Ct UiO SERIAL hC
OCCUPATION
RtSIOENCE OF PERSON FINGCRPRfSTtU
SCARS. MARKS, TATTOOS. AND AMPUTATIONS SWT
BASIS FOR CAUTION ICO
DATE OF OFFENSE DCO
SKlH TONE SKN
MISC. NO. MNU
A0DtTtON«L INFORWATION
fO 249 (REV 4 26-71) *> CPO : J97I O ■ 437-611
4. HC'.Z Uif^JIATIOHStH PrOPES FiKCEt ftLOCkt.
i, -^in Fl».«l D«tfOMTiOM IN ttOC« Of FIOUT Wg* IF i^OT MC* l-^i'lalLC. iUI-
kli l,*Tt« OH FB' rOBu S.U FOh C0M»l.t"Ov 0* "CCtWD. JF *l*i*t OtSPQU-
TOK Hi- *VA;L*^Lt »<0" "BE TBiA^ OJI .ascrmc ACfC" O'.POliTIOM, •. ».
C*LE*>tC ■•!> FOBMi^t. CMi«CE fttlk. 1 ll«ti(0 OVE^ 'C. r- T^.l *<(«E1T OIIPOU.
TiO" ■■..rCI PBOVIOEI. ON THIl ItOt.
t *»r: CfKTiW *IL mt-BEiilOPC! «»E LCCItlt, FULtt ■Of.lCOWOCLklBnULC
7 C»L-Tra^ CVECF »Ct OS FPOt»T !? CA'JTIOM STiTE-eMT ■■•(KOITW. lAUl FO*
CAIJTIOH <iro> WU^T CivE BEAMM FOR CAUTIOM. *. «^ iULEO «N0 (MMCCDQUS.
WIC'DJiL. ETC.
t. MrlCEt^AMEOUt HVMBEIt [HNLV - SHOULD 'fiClUOE UC* w'JMBCBl Mi MUTABT
irRVICE. P*VS*nBT AMVOK VEIEBANS «t)W'r«ISTItAT;3K lU'CMTiFT T1PC Of MUN-
» PBO'TJE ITXTUTE CIT*ltOW I9EMTIFT1NC IPCOFlC l'*TUTE {■••>«U . PL Im .
P£«»L lt»l *ODC»IMWAL CODE CITATtOM iMCLUC'l^ ««' UiS ICCTIOMS.
IP 11', INf 0CU»1I0» HFCWESTED 1^ ElJEKTIJkL.
5lUo COPY TO;
RFPLY DE.-lHtD'
□
■"ifL^jnite^iEMT -rf *'.L C*-eiiF MJajtCT tOL-O TO EE
* COLLECT «ief CM ;0L- tCT TIlIPrtUiE BEPIY
>l-^iiu -Nlfltite ftnf iwiRE ;(iTO" Alt L'M'JOWW 3ECEA1E3I
TSlEVMOME RFPlT TELEPt^OKE MO aHC iK£» COCE
! iZj □
L^AVE bl4jvf.
)-t'AVE eiAhX.
162
Federal jurisdictions and to contend with intei'state criminal mobility. These
considerations give rise to the "multi-state, single-state" concept. NCIC/CCH
will maintain an abbreviated or summarj^ record (index) on single-state offenders
and a complete detailed record on multi-state offenders.
Entries (except Federal offenders which the FBI will enter) into the CCH file
will be made from the state level with each entry supported by a fingerprint card.
Should the state agency not be able to identify a fingerprint card in its state
identification bureau it would forward the card to the FBI which would conduct
a technical fingerprint search in an effort to identify the individual with an existing
CCH record from another state. If no identification is made, the submitting state
would establish a CCH record. If an identification is made, the submitting state
would update the existing CCH record with this arrest. Should this latter action
have the effect of creating a multi-state record the abbreviated national record
would be replaced by a complete detailed record.
Currently the national file contains the complete record and will continue to do
so until such time as all states develop essential services such as identification,
information flow and computer sj'stems capabilities. The CCH Program will be
continually evaluated, looking toward implementation of the single-state/multi-
state concept.
The CCH Program was initiated on-line through the NCIC system in Novem-
ber, 1971. Currently the states of Arizona, Florida, Illinois, New York, and Penn-
sylvania have supplied to the FBI computerized records for the national file. In
1,1
^0^
Vt^
K-«<(R<-v. R.2<»-7i) FINAL DISPOSITIOK REPORT
Note: ThJK vittil rrport must be prepared on each individual whose arrest finRerprints have been forwarded
to the FBI IdrntiTication Division without final disposition noted thereon. If no final disposition is avail-
oWo to .irrestinp agency, aleo obtain subject's riRht four finger impressions on this form, complete left side
nnd forward the form when case referred to proisecutor and/ or courts. Agency on notice as to final disposition should complete this
form and suhmii to: Oiiector, FBI, Wojhinqton, D. C. 20537, Allenlion: Identification Division.
(See inslnirtions on reverse side)
FBI No.
IF KNOWN
Nome on Fingrrpnn: Card Subr.ntl.''ii tr. F\'A
Last F^r^l Middl'-
MU3T COftHeSPONO WITH NAME ON
ARREST FINSERPRINT CURO.
If FBI No. i:nl<nn\Mi. pumi'ih:
Date of Binh MOMTM- PtkV- VeAI» .Sen
cl«;rcnl.on IF KWQWN-A5 gUOT^O 9Y fSI
State BureRu No.
IF APPLICA&LE
Contributor of FinRcrprnt^
SPECiflEN FINAL
AGEMCY &ue>iirriNa *,nRe%r ritiiaeuMtiKT cars
(GiviE OOHPLCTE ADSOSSS lUCUtOtNb Zip COBe)
Final r>iRposition & Date
(If convicted or subject pleaded guilty to lesser charge, includa
this modification with disposition.)
I. iNcuJoe riMfti. DisposmoN 4 o*.Te por.
GNCH OFFEMSE CMARGSD &r ARAEST.
*, INOICATE TYPe OP SENTENCS IMPOSED t
e.o., coNSEomvs, concurrent, prpsation,
ETC., IP APPLICABLX.
Arrest Nn.
AS APPEARS ON
AKRESr FlMGCAKtIur CM9
Date Arrested or Received
MC*(TM - DAY- YEAA
Offenaes Charged at Arrest
OFPCHSEft MUST Be SJJvte AS THose
APPCARitM OH ARREST R»«6eRPa!Mr CARP-
This Form .Sulimitted By:
(Na.Tie. Title, Agency, City & State)
OFFIC£R. OF AfflZNCY SUBn^im»a PiWAU REPORT.
Ul^r IN IX»J}SR SMMM AOG^E.
'osiTioN mm
Signature
litle
F] COURT ORDERED EXPUNGEMENT:
Return yVrrest Fingerprint Cord to Contributing Agency;
Certified or Authenticated Copy of Court Order Attached.
^ight Four Fingers Taken Simultaneously
' IP KjOCK. IS OlECXeO. MAKS CERVAlM THAT
oeimpiep or authenticated copy of court
OPOrR IS SECURELY ATTAOieo TO THlb FORK.
ARRESTIMQ AQENCY MUST OBTAIN
OF SUSOeCT ON TWIS FORM. ALL
THIS FORM MOT TO BE USED IN
f«GH
FOUR FINGER ItlPRESSIONS
IMFORf>^ATlON REOUeSTSD IS eSSCNTlAL ,
-leU OF ARREST FINGERPRINT CARO.
163
addition, the FBI has been making entries on Federal offenders who have been
arrested since January, 1970, including entries for the District of Columbia. As of
February 23, 1973, there were 288,207 CCH records.
I am submitting the following document for the record which will furnish de-
tailed information concerning the NCIC/CCH Program. (A paper entitled "Na-
tional Crime Information Center (NCIC) Computerized Criminal History Pro-
gram, Background, Concept, and Policv As Approved bv NCIC AdvisoryPolicy
Board, September 20, 1972.")
* CM 1»J1 0— 4ia-«JJ
1-4 (Rjv. :-20. 71)
HASTEX
UNITED SVATSS D=?.4RTMSWr O? JUSTSCS
3-1-73 ,206' bj
TKe fi!!nvving F8I feci.iJ, NUMBER .305 9(4 C
Infcrroction shcvvn on tliis Ideniificriti.rri P.ecjrti tsprssents dafci
VvilEP.v L>iSFOS!riC.;i !'• f>:OT SivO'VM OS FURT;;'"' EXPLAl-i.'.
Diiiki'u, co.v.MUNiCA.'t WITH A; f.;cv coriiKicL'YiNC T,:o
, is furnlsliad FOR OrFICIA!. USE ONLY.'
fvenish'^d F3! by fingerprint contributors.
HON OF charge; or risfc-sition. is
COf~«:5'-/TC» Of
HAMZ A«0 KyvSE.'!
Asafsua o«
RECEIVED
CKABGC
O.iKXmOH '
1)C Crt uf Gen
Frank Jones
2-10-6G
inloxicatioii
prob 6 mos
Sessions
Wash IX
DC Jail
Fraiik Jones
7-19-58
burg H &i riot
VVa.sh DC
#105013
I'D W.ash DC
Fraiil-: Tliomai;
Jones #231895
2-26-69
;ceep & selling
& CDW (gun)
released
PD Ball Md
John Coleman
#04.507
8-4-69
armed robbery
3 years "
SO Faivfielcl
John EaVard
3-14-72
bur^^lary ■
Pairoeli Cal
Doe iflii5972
oIMULAl
'ED RL'COr
^D
i::'F:iiTiFiCATroM division
164
'..!29 CRer. 10-21-83)
355974 C
$y^^/^f^(L yjcc^/-
</
PROPERTY OF
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Washington, 0. C. 20537
FINGERPRINT IDENTIFICATION FILE
The Background, Concept, and Polic}- paper, beginning on page 10, contains
provisions relating to the security and confidentiaUty of information in the NCIC
interstate criminal history exchange system. In addition to these provisions,
system operating procedures identify each record with the agency entering the
record which is protected by computer programming from change by any other
agency. The computer is progi'amed to make certain sufficient data is included in
record entries to prevent erroneous identification. Communications lines are
dedicated to NCIC use.
Former Director Hoover has kept the Congress advised of the development of
NCIC in testimony before the House Subcommittee on Appropriations since 1966.
On March 17, 1971, he presented detailed information concerning the CCH File
before the Subcommittee. Also on March 17, 1971, Assistant Director Dwight J.
Dalbey presented Mr. Hoover's statement concerning the NCIC and the CCH
Program before the Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights of this Committee.
September 20, 1972.
National Crime Information Center (NCIC) Computerized Criminal
History Program Background, Concept and Policy as Approved by
NCIC Advisory Policy Board
background and concept
The development in 1971, of the computerized criminal history- file as part of
the operating NCIC system is a major step forward in making this system of
optimum value to all agencies involved in the administration of criminal justice.
It is felt pertinent at this time to restate established NCIC concepts and operating
policies, as well as new steps necessary to place this new application in its proj^er
perspective. Offender criminal historj* has alwaj-s been regarded by NCIC as the
basic file in a criminal justice information system. From the beginning of NCIC
165
sensitivitj^ of a criminal history file with its securitj^ and coiifidentialit.v consider-
atioas has alwaj's been recognized (Science and Technology Task Force Report,
The President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice,
1967).
It is important to keep in mind the need to develop an offender criminal history
exchange with the states that will rapidly gain the confidence of all users in terms
of system integrit.y, accuracy, and completeness of file content. This type of dis-
cipline is necessary if a nationwide system employing the necessarj' standards is to
succeed. This is an essential consideration during the record conversion stage
even though available data is limited, and becomes an essential goal in an operating
on-line system.
From its inception, the concept of NCIC has been to serve as a national index
and network for 50 state law enforcement information systems. Thus, the NCIC
does not, nor is it intended to, eliminate the needs for such systems at appropriate
state and metropolitan levels, but complements these systems. The concept was
built on varying levels and types of information in metropoHtan area, state and
national files. In such an overall s.vstem many thousands of duplicate indices in
local, state and Federal agencies could be eliminated and all agencies share in
centralized operational information from a minimum number of computer files.
The purpose of centralization be.yond economics is to contend with increasing
criminal mobilitj' and recidivism (criminal repeating). Computer and communica-
tions technology makes this possible and, in fact, demands this system concept.
Our way of life demands that local and state government retain their traditional
responsibility over law enforcement. Computer and communications technology
such as NCIC enhances local and state capability to preserve this tradition. The
NCIC system places complete responsibility for all record entries on each agencj' —
local, state or Federal. Likewise, clearance, modification and cancellation of these
records are also the responsibility of the entering agency. Each record, for all
practical purposes, remains the possession of the entering agency. However, each
local and state agenc,y in one state can immediately share information contributed
by another agency in another state. This continuity of information greatly in-
creases the capabilit}' of local and state agencies in working across state lines
which have in the past been barriers to mutual state and local law enforcement
efforts.
The NCIC system, which is the first use of computer/communications tech-
nology to link together local, state and Federal governments, established the
control terminal concept. In a national S3'stem, although the individual users are
responsible for the accuracy, validitj-, and completeness of their record entries
and their action decisions on positive responses to inquiries, more stringent con-
trols with respect to S3"stem discipline are required. A control terminal on the
NCIC systein is a state agency or a large core city ser\icing statewide or metro-
politan area users. These control terminals, rapidly becoming computer based,
share the responsibility in the national network in monitoring sjstem use, en-
forcing discipline and assuring system procedures and policies are met b.y all
users. The NCIC s.vstem through its related control terminals and the advent of
criminal history, has a potential of over 4.5,000 local, state and Federal criminal
justice user terminals. Tradition, computer/communications technolog.y, and the
potential size of the NCIC network and its related state systems demand that its
management responsibility be shared with the states. To accomiiiish this objective
an NCIC Working Comniittee and an Advisory Polic}' Board were established.
From the beginning, the NCIC sj'steni concept has been to encourage and
develop strong central state information and communications services. Through
mandatory reporting laws at the state level, essential centralized files can be
established for both operational and administrative use. The administrative or
statistical use of computer based files is a vital consideration. A state cannot make
intelligent decisions about crime problems or criminal justice effectiveness unless
it can statistically document tlie extent and nature of crime and the success or
failure of the criminal justice system in its treatment of offenders. Thus, the
planning of these systems must incorporate means of obtaining the necessary
statistical data as a by-product of the operational information being processed
on a day-to-day basis. This is particularh- true with respect to the criminal his-
tory application.
Of further significance are the centralized police statistics programs (Uniform
Crime Reports) now operating in 10 states whereby comparative crime statistics
are furnished to the national level through a central state agenc.y. This statistical
data furnished to the FBI for national use is merely a by-product of a more de-
166
tailed state program which is an integral part of state law enforcement informa-
tion services.
Offender criminal history, i.e., the physical and numeiical de'^criptors of an
arrested person and the basic recorded actions of the criminal jnstice agencies with
respect to the offender and the charge, is vital information in day-to-day criminal
justice operations. FBI studies as published in Uniform Crime Reports have doc-
umented the extent of criminal repeating by the serious offender, i.e., an average
criminal career of 10 years and 6 arrests. With respect to criminal mobility, about
70 percent of the rearrests (criminal repeating) will be within the same state.
Therefore, an offender criminal history file in scope and use is essentially a state
file and a state need.
There is, however, sul)stantial interstate criminal mobility (25-30 percent)
which requires sharing of information from state to state. There is no way to
]30sitively identif.y a first offender who will later commit a crime in another state.
The approach then to a national index must be an empirical judgment that all
state offenders committing serious and other significant violations must be in-
cluded in the national index. As in other aspects of the system, the determination
of which criminal acts constitute serious or significant violations resides with each
individual state. A national index is required to efficiently and effectively coordi-
nate the exchange of criminal history among state and Federal jurisdictions and
to contend with interstate criminal mobility.
The development of offender criminal history for interstate exchange required
the establishment of standardized offense classifications, definitions, and data
elements. Felony and misdemeanor definitions cannot be used in this approach
because of the wide variation in state statutes. In fact, the definitions of a specific
crime by state penal codes also vary widely. For full utilitj^ and intelligent de-
cision-making, offender criminal history requires a common undei-standing of the
terminology used to describe the criminal act and the criminal justice action.
Computerized offender criminal history must have the criminal fingerprint card
taken at the time of arrest as the basic source document for all record entries
and updates. This is necessary in order to preserve the personal identification
integrity of the system. While the criminal history file in the NCIC system will
be open to all law enforcement terminals for inquiry, only the state agency can
enter and u]3date a record. This provides for better control over the national file
and its content. It relies on a central state identification function to eliminate
duplications of records and provides the best statistical opportunity to link
together multi-jurisdictional criminal history at local and county level.
Using the NCIC concept of centralized state information systems, another
requirement is to change the flow of criminal fingerprint cards. Local and county
contributors wdthin a state must in an ultimate operational system forward
criminal fingerprint cards to the FBI through the central state identification
function. Where the state can make the identification with a prior print in file,
it can take the necessary action in a compaterized file without submission to the
FBI. Where the state cannot make the identification, the fingerprint card must
be submitted to the national identification file. Again, the system's concept is
that a fingerprint card must be the source document for a record entry and u])date,
but now it will be retained at the state or national level. This approach eliminates
considerable duplication of effort in identifying fingerprint submissions, particu-
larly criminal repeaters at state and national level. It will be the responsibility
of each state to determine its own capability in regard to servicing intrastate
criminal fingerprint cards. Whenever a state has determined that it is ready to
assume processing all intrastate criminal fingerprint cards, the state agency will
inform contributors within the state to forward all criminal fingerprint submis-
sions to the state identification bureau, including those which were previously
directed to the FBI, and will also so inform the FBI. Since the success of the sys-
tem concept depends on this procedure all possible measures will be taken to
assure compliance.
As pointed out earlier, the Justification for a national index is to efficiently and
effectively coordinate .50 state systems for offender criminal history exchange.
The need is to identify the interstate mobile offender. FBI statistics indicate that
about 70 percent of the offenders confine their activity to a single state. These
may be described as single state offenders. Another 25 to 30 percent of the offenders
commit crimes supported by fingerprint cards in two or more states. FBI statistics
with respect to more serious violators indicate that on an average, one-third
accumulate arrests in three or more states over a 6 to Q-j^ear period. Offenders
with arrests in two or more states may be described as multiple state offenders.
In either event sufficient data must be stored in the national index to provide
167
all users, particularly those users who do not have the capability to fully partic-
ipate in the beginning system, the information necessarj^ to meet basic criminal
justice needs.
In order for the system to trulj' become a national system, each state must
create a fully operational computerized state criminal history- capability within
the state before July 1, 1975.
Although the present need for the criminal history file and the unequal devel-
opment of state criminal justice s.ystems dictate a simple initial index structure,
the ultimate system should differentiate between "multiple state" and "single
state" offenders with respect to the level of residency of detailed criminal history.
"Single state" offenders would be those whose criminal justice interactions have
been non-Federal and confined to a single state having a computerized criminal
history system.
The interstate exchange of computerized criminal history records requires a
standard set of data elements and standard definitions. The system design must
be built upon user needs for all criminal justice agencies and end with user input.
It should be designed on what it is possible to achieve in the future and initially^
operate on the information and hardware available at all levels at the present
time. While the projiosed formats and standardized offense classifications and
definitions seem ambitious, to approach a system of this potential scope and size
without a plan to substantially' improve the identification/criminal historj^ flow
would be a serious error.
System concept
As pointed out earlier the concept of NCIC since initial planning in 1966 has
been to complement state and metropolitan area systems. Although computer/
communications technology is a powerful tool, a single national file of detailed
law enforcement data was viewed as being unmanageable and ineffective in
serving the broad and specialized needs of local, state and Federal agencies. The
potential size and scope of a national s^'stem of computerized criminal history
involving 45,000 criminal justice agencies demands joint management bv the
states and the FBI/NCIC.
Necessity for State files
(1) Seventy percent of the criminal history records will be single state in nature,
i.e., all criminal activity limited to one state and, therefore, "the responsibility
of and of primary interest to that state,
(2) State centralization can tie together the frequent intrastate, multijurisdic-
tional arrests <jf the same offender and thus eliminate imnecessary duplication
of files at municipal and county level. This will obviously result in economies,
(3) A state system with a detailed data base, because of its manageable size^
can best satisfy most local and state criminal justice agency information needs
both on and off line. The national file then complements rather than duplicates
the state file.
(4) A state with a central data base of criminal history has the necessary
statistical information for overall planning and evaluation including specialized
needs unrelated to the national file,
(5) State control of record entry and updating to national file more clearly
fixes responsibility, offers greater accuracy, and more rapid development of the
necessary standards,
(6) A central state system provides for shared management responsibility with
FBI/NCIC in monitoring intrastate use of the NCIC, including security and
confidentiality,
(7) By channeling the criminal identification flow through the state to the
national level eliminates substantial duplication of effort at national and state
levels.
Compatihilify of State and national files
(1) To contend with criminal repeating and mobility, a national index of state
and Federal offender criminal history is necessary, i!e., a check of one central
index rather than 51 other jurisdictions,
(2) The duplication does provide a liackup to recreate either a national or state
file in the event of a disaster, a crosscheck for accuracy, validity, and completeness
as well as a more efficient use of the network,
(3) The NCIC record format and data elements for comiDuterized criminal
history afford a standard for interstate exchange,
168
(4) In the developed S3^stem single state records (70 percent) will become an
abbreviated criminal history record in the national index with switching capability'
for the states to obtain the detailed record. Such an abbreviated record should con-
tain sufficient data to satisfy most inquiry needs, i.e., identification segment,
originating agency, charge, date disposition of each criterion offense and current
status. This will substantially reduce storage costs and eliminate additional
duplication.
Program development
The proper development of the Computerized Criminal History Program, in
terms of its impact on criminal justice efficiency and effectiveness and dollar costs,
is vital. At the present time there is a wide range of underdevelopment among the
states in essential services such as identification, information flow, i.e., court dispsoi-
tion reporting programs, computer systems and computer skills.
(1) NCIC implemented computerized criminal history in November, 1971,
requiring the full interstate format for both single and multi-state records be-
cause :
(a) This enables all states to obtain the benefits of the Computerized
Criminal History Program.
(b) This provides all states time to develop and implement the necessary
i-elated programs to fully participate.
(c) Familiarity with and adherence to all system standards will speed pro-
gram development.
(2) It is understood that the NCIC Computerized Criminal History Program
will be continually evaluated, looking toward the implementation of single state,
multi-slate concept.
Levels of ■participation
(1) State maintains central computerized criminal justice information system
interfaced with NCIC. The state control terminal has converted an initial load of
criminal history and these records are stored at state and national lev^els. The state
control terminal has the on-line capability of entering new records into state and
NCJC storage, as well as the abilits' to update the computer stored records.
Through the state system local agencies can inquire on-line for criminal history at
state and natit»nal levels. This is a ful].y participating NCIC state control terminal.
(2) State maintains an electronic switch linking local agencies for the purpose of
administrative message traffic and on-line access to NCIC through a high-speed
interface. No data storage at state level; however, criminal history records are
stored in NCIC' and new records entered and updated by the state control terminal
from a manual interface to the electronic switch. The switch provides local agencies
direct access to NCIC for criminal history summary information and other files.
(3) The state maintains manual terminal on low-speed line to NCIC. State
control terminal services local agencies off-line, i.e., radio, teletype and telephone.
Since volume of computerized criminal history is relatively small the state control
terminal may convert criminal history records, enter and ujidate these records in
NCIC. No computer storage at state level.
Levels 2 and -3 are interim measures until such time as the state agency secures
the necessary hardware to fully participate. At that time the state records stored in
NCIC will Idc copied in machine form and returned to the originating state to
implement the state system.
SECURITY AND CONFIDENTIALITY
I. Information in FBI/NCIC Interstate Criminal History Exchange System
A. Entries of criminal history data into the NCIC computer and updating of
the computerized record will be accejjted only from an authorized state or Federal
criminal justice control terminal. Terminal devices in other criminal justice agen-
cies will be limited to inquiries and responses thereto. An authorized state control
terminal is defined as a state criminal justice agency on the NCIC sj'stem servicing
statewide criminal justice users with respect to criminal history data. Control
terminals iji Federal agencies will be limited to those invc)lved in the administra-
tion of criminal justice and/or having law enforcement responsibilities.
B. Data stored in the NCIC computer will include personal identification data,
as well as public record data concerning each of the individual's major steps
through the criminal justice jjrocess. A record concerning an individual will be
initiated u])on the first arrest of that individual for an offense meeting the criteria
established for the national file. Each arrest will initiate a cycle in the record.
169
which cycle will be complete upon the offender's discharge from the criminal
justice process in dispositioii of that arrest.
C. Each cycle in an individual's record will be based ui)on fingerprint identifica-
tion. Ultimately the criminal fingerprint card documenting this identification will
be stored at the state level or in the case of a Federal offense, at the national level.
At least one criminal fingerprint card must be in the files of the FBI Identification
Division to support the C(jmputerized criminal history record in the national
index.
D. The data with respect to current arrests entered in the national index will
be restricted to serious and/or significant violations. Excluded from the national
index will be juvenile offenders as defined by state law (unless the juvenile is tried
in court as an adult) ; charges of drimkenness and/or vagrancy; certain public order
offenses, i.e., disturbing the peace, curfew violations, loitering, false fire alarm;
traffic violations (except data will be stored on arrests for manslaughter, driving
under the influence of drugs or liquor, and "hit and run") ; and non-specific charges
of suspicion or investigation.
E. Data included in the system must be limited to that with the characteristics
of public record, i.e.;
1. Piccorded by officers of public agencies or divisions thereof directly and
principally concerned with crime prevention, apprehension, adjudication or
rehabilitation of offenders.
2. Recording must have been made in satisfaction of public duty.
3. The public duty must have been directly relevant to criminal justice
responsibilities of the agency.
F. Social history data should not be contained in the interstate criminal history
system, e.g., narcotic civil commitment or mental hygiene commitment. If, how-
ever, such commitments are part of the criminal justice process, then they should
be part of the system.
Criminal history records and other law enforcement operational files should not
be centrally stored or controlled in "data bank" systems containing non-criminal
justice related information, e.g., welfare, hospital, education, revenue, voter
registration, and other such non-criminal files necessary for an orderly process in a
dem.ocratic society.
G. Each control terminal agency shall follow the law or practice of the state or,
in the case of a Federal control terminal, the applicable Federal statute, with
respect to purging/expunging data entered by that agency in the nationally stored
data. Data may be purged or expunged only by the agency originally entering that
data. If the offender's entire record stored at the national level originates with one
control terminal and all cycles are piirged/expunged by that agencj', ail informa-
tion, including personal identification data will be removed from the computerized
NCIC file.
II. Steps to Assure Accuracy of Stored Information
A. The FBI/NCIC and state control terminal agencies will make continuous
checks on records being entered in the system to assure system standards and
criteria are being met.
B. Control terminal agencies shall adopt a careful and permanent program of
data verification including:
1. Systematic audits conducted to insure that files have been regularly and
accurately vipdated.
2. Where errors or points of incompleteness are detected the control terminal
shall take immediate action to correct or complete the NCIC record as well
as its own state record.
III. Who May Access Criminal History Data
A. Direct access, meaning the ability to access the NCIC computerized file by
means of a terminal device, will be permitted only for criminal justice agencies
in the discharge of their official, mandated responsibilities. Agencies that will be
permitted direct access to NCIC criminal history data include:
1. Police forces and departments at all governmental levels that are re-
sponsible for enforcement of general criminal laws. This should be understood
to include highway patrols and similar agencies.
2. Prosecutive agencies and departments at all governmental levels.
3. Courts at all governmental levels with a criminal or equivalent juris-
diction.
4. Correction departments at all government levels, including corrective
institutions and probation departments.
170
■15. Parole commissions and agencies at all governmental levels.
'6. Agencies at all governmental levels which have as a principal function
the collection and provision of fingerprint identification information.
7. State control terminal agencies which have as a sole function by statute
the development and operation of a criminal justice information sj'stem.
IV. Control of Criminal Justice Systems
All computers, electronic switches and manual terminals interfaced directly
with the NCIC computer for the interstate exchange of criminal history infor-
mation must be under the management control of criminal justice agencies
authorized as control terminal agencies. Similarh^, satellite computers and manual
terminals accessing NCIC through a control terminal agency computer must be
under the management control of a criminal justice agency. Management control
is defined as that applied by a criminal justice agency with the authority to
emplo.y and discharge personnel, as well as to set and enforce policy concerning
computer operations. Management control includes, but is not limited to, the
direct supervision of equipment, systems design, programming and operating
procedures necessarj' for the development and implementation of the computer-
ized criminal history program. Management control must remain full}' inde-
pendent of noncriminal justice data systems and criminal justice systems shall
be primarily dedicated to the service of the criminal justice community.
In those instances where criminal justice agencies are utilizing equipment and
personnel of a noncriminal justice agency for NCIC/CCH purposes, the following
criteria will apply in meeting the above management control provisions:
1. The hardv.are, including processor, communications control, and storage
devices, to be utilized for the handling of criminal history data must be dedicated
to the criminal justice function.
2. The criminal justice agency must exercise management control with regard
to the operating of the aforementioned equipment by:
(a) having a written agreement with the noncriminal justice agencj'
operating the data center providing the criminal justice agency authority to
select and supervise personnel,
(b) having the authorit.y to set and enforce policy concerning computer
operations, and
(c) having budgetary control with regard to personnel and equipment, in
the criminal justice agencj-.
The Board endorses the following statement by the Director of the FBI before
the Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights on March 17, 1971. "If law enforce-
ment or other criminal justice agencies are to be responsible for the confidentiality
of the information in computerized systems, then they must have complete man-
agement control of the hardware and the people who use and operate the system.
These information systems should be limited to the function of serving the crim-
inal justice communitj" at all levels of government — local, state and Federal."
The following are considerations:
1. Success of law enforcement/criminal justice depends first on its manpower,
adequac}^ and quality, and secondlj-, information i^roperiy processed, retrievable
when needed and used for decision making. Law enforcement can no more give
up control of its information than it can its manpower.
2. Computerized information systems are made up of a number of integral
parts; namely, the users, the operating staff, computers and related hardware,
communications and terminal devices. For effectiveness, management control
of the entire system cannot be divided between functional and nonfunctional
agencies. Likewise, the long-standing law enforcement fingerprint identification
process is an essential element in the criminal justice system.
3. Historically, law enforcement/criminal justice has been responsible for the
confidentiality of its information. This responsibility cannot be assumed if its
data base is in a computer sj'stem out of law enforcement/criminal justice control.
4. The function of public safety and criminal justice demands the highest order
of priority, 24 liours a day. Experience has shown that this prioritj^ is best achieved
and maintained through dedicated systems.
5. A national/statewide public safety and criminal justice computer/communi-
cations system, because of priority, scope including system discipline, and informa-
tion needs, on and off line, will require full service of hardware and operating per-
sonnel.
6. Historically, police and criminal justice information have not been inter-
mingled or centrally stored with noncriminal social files, such as revenue, welfare,
171
and medical, etc. This concept is even more valid with respect to computerized
information systems at both national and state levels.
7. These sj'stems, particularh' public safety and criminal justice information
sj'stems, must be functional and user oriented if they are to develop effectively.
Computer skills are a part of the system. Ineffective systems resvdt not only in
the greatest dollar loss but also costs in lives.
V. Use of System-Derived Criminal History Data
A. Criminal historj- data on an individual from the national computerized file
will be made available outside the Federal government to criminal justice agencies
for criminal justice purposes. This precludes the dissemination of such data for use
in connection with licensing or local or state employment, other than with a
criminal justice agenc}', or for other uses unless such dissemination is pursuant to
state and Federal statutes. There are no exceptions.
B. The use of data for research should acknowledge a fundamental commitment
to respect individvial privac.v interests with the identification of subjects divorced
as fulh- as possible from the data. Proposed programs must be reviewed by the
NCIC or control terminal agency to assure their propriety and to determine that
proper securit}' is being provided. All noncriminal justice agency requests involv-
ing the identities of individuals in conjunction with their national criminal history
records must be approved bj' the Advisory Policj' Board.
The NCIC or control terminal agency must retain rights to monitor any research
project approved and to terminate same if a violation of the above principles is
detected. Research data shall be provided off line only.
C. Should any information be verified that any agency has received criminal
historj' information and has disclosed that information to an unauthorized source,
immediate action will be taken b.y NCIC to discontinue criminal history service to
that agency, through the control terminal if appropriate, until the situation is
corrected.
D. Agencies should be instructed that their rights to direct access encompass
only requests reasonably connected with their criminal justice responsibilities.
E. The FBI/NCIC and control terminals will make checks, as necessary, con-
cerning inquiries made of the s.vstem to detect possible inisuse.
F. The establishing of adequate state and Federal criminal penalties for mis-
use of criminal history data is endorsed.
G. Detailed computerized criminal history printouts shall contain caveats
to the effect, "This response based on numeric identifier only" and "Official use
only — arrest data based on fingerprint identification by submitting agenc.y or
FBI." These caveats will be generated by the FBI, NCIC or state control termi-
nal's computer or may be preprinted on paper stock.
VI. Right to Challenge Record
The person's right to see and challenge the contents of his record shall form an
integral part of the system with reasonable administrative procedures.
VII. Phj-sical, Technical, and Personnel Security Measures
The following securitj^ measures ai-e the minimum to be adopted by all criminal
justice agencies having access to the NCIC Computerized Criminal History File.
These measures are designed to pre\-ent unauthorized access to the system data
and/or unauthorized use of data obtained from the computerized file.
A. Computer Centers:
1. The criminal justice agency computer site must have adequate physical
security to protect against any unauthorized personnel gaining access to the
computer equipment or to any of the stored data.
2. Since personnel at these computer centers can access data stored in
the s3'Stem, they must be screened thoroughly under the authority and super-
vision of an NCIC control terminal agencj'. (This authoritj' and supervision
ma J' be delegated to responsible criminal justice agenc.y personnel in the
case of a satellite computer center being serviced through a state control
terminal agencj'.) This screening will also apply to non-criminal justice
maintenance or technical personnel.
3. All visitors to these computer centers must be accompanied by staff
personnel at all times.
4. Computers having access to the NCIC must have the proper computer
instructions written and other built-in controls to prevent criminal history
data from being accessible to any terminals other than authorized terminals
172
5. Computers having access to the NCIC must maintain a record of all
transactions against the criminal history file in the same manner the NCIC
computer logs all transactions. The NCIC identifies each specific agency
entering or receiving information and maintains a record of those transactions.
This transaction record must be monitored and reviewed on a regular basis
to detect any possible misuse of criminal history data.
6. Each state control terminal shall build its data system around a central
computer, through which each inquiry must pass for screening and verifica-
tion. The configuration and operation of the center shall provide for the
integrity of the data base.
B. Communications:
1. Lines/channels being used to transmit criminal histor}^ information
must be dedicated solely to criminal justice use, i.e., there must be no ter-
minals belonging to agencies outside the criminal justice system sharing
these lines/channels.
2. Physical security of the lines/channels must be protected to guard
against clandestine devices being utilized to intercei^t or inject S3'stem
traffic.
C. Terminal Devices Having Access to NCIC:
1. All agencies having terminals on the system must be required to physi-
call}' place these terminals in secure locations within the authorized agency.
2. The agencies having terminals with access to criminal history must
have terminal operators screened and restrict access to the terminal to a
minimum number of authorized employees.
3. Copies of criminal history data obtained from terminal devices must be
afforded seciu'ity to prevent any unauthorized access to or use of that data.
4. All remote terminals on NCIC Computerized Criminal History will
maintain a hard copy of computerized criminal history inquiries with notation
of individual making request for record (90 days) .
VIII. Permanent Committee on Securitj' and Confidentiality
A permanent committee has been established, composed of NCIC participants,
which group will address the problems of security and privacy on a continuing
basis and provide guidance to the NCIC Advisor}' Policy Board. Some areas
recommended for study are :
A. The consideration of criteria for the purging of records, i.e., deletion of
records after a designated period of criminal inactivity or attainment of a specified
age, etc.
B. The consideration of criteria for qualification of non-criminal justice agencies
for secondary access to criminal history data.
C. A model state statute for protecting and controlling data in any future
system should be drafted and its adoption encouraged.
IX. Organization and Administration
A. Eftch control terminal agency shall sign a written ag-reement with the NCIC
to conform with system policy before participation in the criminal history program
is permitted. This would allow for control over the data and give assurance of
system security.
B. In each state the control terminal agencj^ shall prepare and execute a written
agreement containing similar provisions to the agi-eement by the states and NCIC
with each criminal justice agency having a terminal device capable of accessing
criminal history data within that state.
C. Eacli state criminal justice control terminal agency is responsible for the
security throughout the system being serviced by that agency, including all
places where terminal devices are located.
D. A system security officer shall be designated in each control terminal agency
to assure all necessary physical, personnel, computer and communications safe-
guards prescribed by the Advisory Policy Board are functioning properly in
systems operations.
E. The rules and procedures governing direct terminal access to criminal history
data shall apply equally to all participants in the system, including the Federal
and state control terminal agencies, and criminal justice agencies having access
to the data stored in the system.
F. All control terminal agencies and other criminal justice agencies having
direct access to computerized criminal history data from the system shall permit
an inspection team appointed by the Security and Confidentiality Committee to
conduct apiDropriate inquiries with regard to any allegations received by the
173
Committee of security violations. The inspection team shall include at least one
representative of the FBI/i\ UlO. All results of the investigation conducted shall
be reported to the Advisory Policy Board with appropriate recommendations.
G. Any non-compliance with these measures shall be brought to the immediate
attention of the Committee which shall make appropriate recommendations to
the Advisory Policy Board. This Board has the responsibility^ for recommending
action, including the discontinuing of service to enforce compHance with system
security regulations.
Senator Tunney, To what extent do you expurgate records from
files that are kept?
Mr. Gray. That is done on any occasion when an originating
agency, what we call a contributor, requests it. As a practicing at-
torney in Connecticut, many times 1 used to do it, ray law firm used
to do it — get those expunged — and the FBI will send that fingerprint
card back nnmediately.
Senator Tunney. But what I am thmking of is in reference to the
files that 3 ou keep on individuals and which are made available to
various agencies. To what extent are those files expurgated, assuming
now that nobody makes a specific request for expunging anything in
the record?
Mr. Gray. Those files we don't expunge, and once again I have got
to give you an explanation so you have a feel for it, I would like to show-
it to you, and I make the same offer that I made to the House
Judiciary Committee, that any member who wants to come and take
a visit there, Ml\ Ciiih'.nan, to se3— an/ m3mb3r of this committee
who wants to take the opportimity to come and visit and see how we
work — this is the committee of Congress in the Senate that we should
be working with. But we make no eft'ort to expunge because of the fact
that a lot of that is raw material and it does not represent files on
individuals. There may be in a file 350 or 400 insertions and the}^ coukl
be on any number of individuals, but we really don't monkey around
■with that unless a request comes in, for example, for a name check.
We will go to the indexes and we will find out, John Q. Doe, and we
will find out what files, what nvunbered files, does John Doe appear in.
We will have to go down through all those general files and find out
what is in them. Then he may be the subject of an investigation and we
have an investigative file and that will show up when we review our
indexes. In the investigative file we do our level best to corroborate
and to verify, but in submitting any report we characterize our sources
as being reliable or otherwise.
We actually lean over backward to make certain that we are being
as fair and as objective as we can when vve submit these, and we put
that language on those documents.
Senator Tunney. To which agencies do you make these investi-
gative files available?
Mr. Gray. Are 3^ou talking about the investigations?
Senator Tunney. Well, the reports, let's just say, to which agencies
do 3"ou make individual personnel files available?
Mr. Gray. As a general rule we don't. We don't do that at all,
because name check requests come in, applicant requests come in to
us, or there could be an ongoing investigation involving individuals
in an agency, and then we would certainly advise — if we look in our
jurisdictional handbooks and under our manual of rules and regu-
lations we see that for this particular type of investigation, these
91-331—73 12
174
people are authorized to receive reports. It could be the Secretary of
the Department concerned. It could also be the Attorney General.
More than likely, also the Deputy Attorney General and, if it is a
criminal offense, more than likely also the Assistant Attorney Genei'al
in charge of the Criminal Division.
Senator Tunney. How about local police departments?
Mr. Gray. Local police departments?
Senator Tunney. Yes.
Mr. Gray. We just don't throw those files around.
Senator Tunney. If they requested a file?
Mr. Gray. No, sir. In fact, I just raised Cain with regard to a
situation out in, I believe it was, our Los Angeles area, when a local
policeman, and this was a criminal investigation, was allowed to even
look at one of our interview reports in a case.
Senator Tunney. Will you send 3^our arrest record portion of the
file to banks or other private
Mr. Gray. No, sir.
Senator Tunney. (continuing). Institutions
Mr. Gray. No, sir.
Senator Tunney (continuing). When they are conducting checks?
Mr. Gray. No, the way that happens is if there is a State statute —
banks are a little bit different because they come under some of the
Federal statutes.
Senator Tunney. Well, any private corporation, do you ever
Mr. Gray. No, absolutely not; no, sir. You know this has been
much discussed in the Congress, and resolutions have been passed and
points of order have been made and it has been rather thoroughly
discussed and aired, and where we stand right now is if a State has a
statute that provides for the receipt of this information for employ-
ment and licensing purposes and the Attorne}^ General of the United
States approves, we ^\ill furnish it for that purpose. But \\'hen we go to
computerized criminal histories and get into the NCIC area, then it
only goes to a la^^■ enforcement agency.
Senator Tunney. So what you are saying is, no private group has
access to any of the information that is contained in your personnel
files?
Mr. Gray. Our policies are against that. We have a record of all
kinds of safeguards to prevent that, but that is a pretty broad question
because you and I both know information from our files has ended up
in some strange places for varying reasons, and I don't kno\v all of the
reasons for this. You can think of the media, for example, as one area.
But no private group has access insofar as we can prevent them from
having access.
Senator Tunney. And local police departments have access only if
the Attorney General appro^'es it?
Mr. Gray. This is for State employment or licensing purposes.
But on the identification record, we will give a re])ort back to a local
police department regarding the card, the fingerprint card, they have
sent in, but we won't send them back all kinds of information out of
our files as distinguished from our identification records.
Senator Tunney. What kind of security does the NCIC data baidi
have?
Mr. Gray. Very, very tight security. I have been over and watched
it when the reject button goes on, and the reject is recorded. Now,
175
there is no question about it, sophisticated people can penetrate, and
have penetrated, computer systems. We are aware of this, we are well
aA\ are of this, and we watch for it all the time. There have been many
technical articles written on penetration of computer systems. In fact,
some people, some of the experts, go so far as to say that you can't
design a computer system that thej' can't penetrate.
Senator Tunney. How many people have access to the NCIC
data bank?
Mr. Gray. What part of it are you talking about, sir? You remem-
ber I read off a list of items.
vSenator Tunney. Yes. Well, say on personal files?
Mr. Gray. Only those who have terminals, and those are all law
enforcement agencies, those terminals are right there under the control
of criminal justice agencies. This is one of the requirements.
Senator Tunney. Do you knovr, offhand, ho^^ many there are?
Mr. Gray. I would say roughly right now, the rough figure of the
law enforcement agencies ha^'ing access tlu-ough terminals in their
State — I am thinking now in terms of the State system, usually there
is a State agency of some kind that has a terminal in that State —
roughly 6,000 police departments in the United States.
Senator Tunney. Is there any way of monitoring the requests for
information to make sure that people ^N'ho are appropriately charged
with enforcement of the la^\' are the ones who are requesting it?
Mr. Gray. Yes, sir; there are all kinds of codes, and, as I mentioned
earlier, Senator, you can stand right there in front of the computer and
see a reject; it \\ill just stop.
I don't w'ant to mislead you, and I don't want you to think that we
claim our computer system is pentrationproof ; we don't. All we claim
is that we have erected all the safeguards within the state of the art at
the i^resent time.
Senator Tunney. There are many more structural questions that I
have, but there are others who haven't asked questions, and I ^^■ould
like temporarily to suspend until they have a chance to ask questions.
I do have a question relating to your involvement or noninvolvement
with the security of documents that were made available to this com-
mittee.
Did you personally give or authorize the giving of the Dita Beard
memorandum to the ITT Corp.?
Mr. Gray. No, I did not.
Senator Tunney. Do you have any idea how the Dita Beard
memorandum ended up in the hands of the ITT Corp.?
IMr. Gray. I don't know that it ended up in the hands of the ITT
Corp., but I can tell you what I did at that time. I have got to, as I
promised Senator Byrd I would do yesterday. I will be more specific
and more precise because I am testifying under oath here. \[y recol-
lection is, after looking at some of my earher notes, 'v\hile I was acting as
the Assistant Attorney General of the Civil Division and Deputy
Attorney General-Designate, I received a call from Mr. Dean, counsel
to the President, asking that this memorandum be made available. I
discussed with him the fact that this was a public document, it had
been printed and published widely in all newspapers in the United
States, that ^\■e \\ere as interested in truth or falsity as they were at
the White House because of the fact that serious allegations were
176
made against the Attorney General, as I recall it, the Deputy Attorney
General, as I recall it, and that, yes, I would make that document
available to him.
Senator Tunney. And it was made available?
Mr. Gray. It was made available to him by me.
Senator Tunney. Do you kno\\' whether Mr. Colson got his hands on
it?
Mr. Gray. No, sir. No, sir; I do not. All I know is that that docu-
ment was returned to me in exactly the same form as I had delivered
it. I know that the Federal Bureau of Investigation report submitted
to this committee, reported that document to be possibly authentic.
Senator Tunney. Well, when the press reports indicated that ITT
did have the Dita Beard memorandum, did you make any effort to
find out how it was that they had gotten access to it?
Mr. Gray. No; I didn't make any effort at all because I felt what
we were interested in ^^-ith regard to that document was the issue of
truth, and if ITT, if that aUegation was true and if ITT could come
up with some information with regard to a serious case of this nature,
I felt that this committee would be entitled to have it. But I don't
know what ITT came up with. I don't know if ITT had that document.
Senator Tunney. Weh, except for the fact that the committee
gave it to the Justice Department to be transmitted to the FBI, and
I don't believe, and I sat through all those hearings, I don't believe
that there ever was an authorization to see that document m de
available to the ITT Corp.
Mr. Gray. I don't know whether there was any authorization or
not. Senator, but in the position that I held as Deputy Attorne}'-
General -Design ate at that time, I was making the decision for the
Department of Justice, and when I am called by counsel to the
President in a matter of this serious nature for a document of this
type, I made it available and I would do it again.
Senator Tunney. Let me ask you this. When you make informa-
tion available to a counsel for the President, and it appears that the
mformation that you have made available is leaked or made available
to third parties who have no right to it, do you feel, as Director of the
FBI, that you have any responsibility to see that an investigation is
done of that WTiite House counselor?
Mr. Gray. That is right. But you always get yourself, you know,
in the problem of who you are going to investigate. You have to be
very, very careful about that because here is where you run into first
amendment considerations and get yourself into a real hassle.
Senator Tunney. The only person who can discipline the White
House counselor is probably the President himself; isn't it?
Mr. Gray. I would suspect so; yes, sir.-
Senator Tunney. In a noncriminal way.
Mr. Gray. That is right; yes, sir — in the absence of laws of the
United States.
Senator Kennedy. I didn't understand, if the Senator will yield,
in response to the Senator's question, the fh'st amendment.
Mr. Gray. You are liable to run into the same kind of a situation,
Senator Kennedy. We do all the time. We go so far in trying to check
out leaks, and we come up with these documents that are in the hands
of the press and you have got to stop, look, and listen, ^''ou have got
to give some consideration to where vou go from there.
177
Senator Kennedy. Well. I menu if you were convinced that there
was a leak by the President's counselor would 3^ou be any less reluctant
to blow that case out of the water?
Mr. Gray. No, and I said yesterday that I proceed on the pre-
sumption of regularity, that I do not proceed on the presumption
that either the President, his counselor, or the members of his staff
are going to
Senator Kennedy. How much evidence do you need to rebut it?
Mr. Gray. How much evidence do I need for what, sir?
Senator Kennedy. Do you need to rebut it. How much e\'idence,
you proceed on a presumption and I am wondering how much evi-
dence do you need to rebut the presumption.
Mr. Gray. That is a kind of presumption. I don't know how much
evitlence. I am not going to take it on the basis of newspaper accounts
and that kind of thing, you know, and that occurred sometime after,
as I recall. I don't know when it was reported in the press.
Senator Tunney. Have you developed au}^ standards, guidelines,
in this particular area?
The thing that concerns me here is that there was a press report
of a leak by a White House counselor cf confidential information to
Mr Segretti.
Mr. Gray. I have not seen that, sir; I don't know. I would have
to see that report right in front of me, you know, to answer that
cjuestion.
Senator Kennedy. Well, there were, it was common knowledge,
you said you blew j^our top.
Mr. Gray. That was on wSegretti?
Senator Kennedy. Yes, on Segretti.
Mr. Gray. I am sorry, that is true.
Senator Kennedy. Then there were also some reports at the time
of the ITT hearing that the Dita Beard memorandum had ended up
in the hands of ITT for purposes of analj^sis, which certainly was
going out of channels and certainly was something that this commit-
tee, I know, I sat on it, didn't authorize. Now I am curious to know
if you are developing any kind of procedures whereby you are going
to protect the FBI and the security of FBI files from disclosures by
White House counselors if, in fact, and we don't know whether they
did or not, they are only allegations, if in fact they do leak this infor-
mation to third parties.
Mr. Gray. Yes, but I don't think there was a violation of law here.
It is not something that is within our jurisdiction to go just willy-
nilly investigating. We can't have it both ways, we have got to have
a violation of law.
Senator Kennedy. Would it be a violation of law if in fact a 'Wliite
House counselor gave your investigative report to Mr. Segretti to
advise him before a grand jury hearing?
Mr. Gray. No; I know of no violation of law in that. Senator.
Senator Kennedy. Are you planning any procedures, any guide-
lines with respect to the making of investigative reports available to
White House counselors?
Mr. Gray. None other than what I have already exercised in the
administration of the office to date — to be very, very careful, to be as
circumspect as I can be about it, to ask questions about it, to discuss
178
it, that kind of thing, and to stay Axithin our own jurisdictional guide-
Hnes. But it shouldn't be i)resunied by anyone that every day I am
called by someone in the White House to send over a file or that kind
of thing. I am not. It just does not hap])en.
Senator Kennedy. And they are not sent over as a matter of course?
Mr. Gray. No, sir. I can state that to you under oath categorically;
no, sir; they are not.
Senator Kennedy. I would like to reserve the balance of my time,
Mr. Chairman, and give others an o]i]iortunity.
The Chairman. Senator Fong.
Senator Fong. Mr. Gray, I am so sorry I. was not able to be here
yesterday afternoon. Therefore, I may ask you some c^uestions that
may be repetitive, but I ask you to go along with me.
You have been charged with not having any enforcement experience,
but reviewing your experience as a lawyer, your experience in the At-
torney General's office, and your other experience, I am satisfied that
you are capable of filling this ])osition.
Another charge leveled against you is that you have too many
dossiers on too many people in the United States. Could you give us
an idea as to when you prepare a file on an individual. Do you i)re])are
a file on an individual whenever you get any kind of com]ilaint against
him, or any criticism, or any communication about him?
Mr. Gray. Not if we get any communication about him. That is
just informant-type information or an anonymous letter situation or
a newspaper clipping sent in. Those usually go into the files, and there
could be 200 or 300 peo])le represented in one of them as distinguished
from when we begin an investigation and actually conduct an investi-
gation of an individual. Then information that is received concerning
that individual is checked and Aerified, using all of our resources to
get to the facts.
Senator Fong. If a man is considered to be a criminal, you A\<>u]d
have a criminal file on him; is that correct?
Mr. Gray. If he has committed a criminal offense, sir, within the
jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, violalied the laws
of the United States for which we have the responsibility to investi-
gate, yes; we would.
Senator Fong. Now, if I were a civil service employee, you \\x>idil
have a file on me?
Mr. Gray. We would probably have an applicant-type situation
where we would have a fingerprint card for you and then if we did a
background investigation on 3^ou, we would; yes.
-Senator Fong. Yes. If, for example, during the war I had a finger-
print of mAself taken and filed with the FBI to identify myself in
case of an}'" casualty, you AAOuld have that kind of information?
Mr. Gray. Yes, and that would be included in our civil file that
Senator Kennedy mentioned earlier. That obviously is not in our
criminal file, and all the military prints make up a pretty large segment
of that civil file according to my understanding of them.
Senator Fong. Then, every militarv man would have a file in the
FBI?
Mr. Gray. He would have from the standpoint of his fingerprint
identification card and then, if a background investigation were made
of him with regard to any classification security clearances that he
179
would receive, he would have that kind of a background investigation
file.
Senator Fong. With regard to the general pubhc, you only have
things that are sent in by various individuals or agencies to the FBI?
Ami then to understand that you just throw this information into
a general file?
Mr. Gray. That is right. It comes in and a decision is made as to
whether to retain it or not. It goes into these big serials, you know,
200 or 300 of them would be together and, if we have an investigative
file set up, instead of gouig over here it would go into the investigative
file.
Senator Fong. Say someone writes in that a John Doe stole an
automobile — vou would just take that and throw it into the general
file?
Mr. Gray. If this is somebody just writing in and. saying John Doe
stole an automobile we are liable to do some checking with the local
PD to see if, in fact, an automobile has been stolen and the Dyer
Act is involved.
Senator Fong. You would consider that as a file on John Doe?
Mr. Gray. If we began to open a file on him we probably would,
with the api^ropriate fiekl office being the office of origin.
Senator Fong. Wlien you say you have about 50 or 60 million
files
Mr. Gray. These are identification records over in the Identifica-
tion Division, Senator, as distinguished from the files over in the Files
and Communications Division. We are dealing mth two different
divisions.
'Senator Fong. Wlien you talk about files, how many files would you
say you had?
Mr. Gray. I don't know. I will have to provide that number for
the record.
(Mr. Gray subsequently submitted the followang document for the
record :)
Mr. Gray. As of March 1, 1973, there are 6,426,813 files.
The Chairman. Well, the 40 million, how far back does that reach?
Air. Gray. How far back do those files reach, sir? From the incep-
tion. But we do have a record management ])rogram.
(Mr. Gray subsequently submitted the following document for the
record :)
Records Management Files and Communications Division Through Close
OF Business 1-31-73
The Files and Communications Division has in operation an extensive and com-
prehensive Records Management Program designed to insure that all records are
maintained in the most compact, informative and useable manner possible.
There are many facets to this program and the major ones are summarized below
together with a listing of accomplishments to date:
1. Correlation Sum7naries. — A correlation summary is a memorandum contain-
ing concise abstracts of information from various Bureau files on a particular
subject or individual. The purpose of the summary is to pull together all informa-
tion on a designated subject in one document. This results in elimination of excess
index references and the consolidation of information in a source document (the
summarjO to locate detailed documents on a particular subject.
Accomplishments :
Summaries Prepared, 4,461.
Index Cards Destroyed, 1,377,968 — Equal to 25?^ index cabinets.
180
2. Index Purge — The purpose of the index purge is to remove obsolete index
cards from the general index in order to make that index more valid in terms of
its information response and more workable in terms of its overall size. The purge
of index cards includes all areas of records management except those index cards
removed through the preparation of correlation summaries.
Accomplishments :
Index Cards Destroyed, 10,942,136— Equal to 202% index cabinets.
3. Copy Destruction. — The goal of the copy destruction program is to destroy
duplicate and excessive copies of record material in order to save file space.
Accomplishments :
Copies destroyed equal to 1,028.8 file cabinets.
4-. Destruction of Files. — This program includes the destruction of record mate-
rial on the basis of authority under the General Records Schedule of disposal and
under specific authoritj^ secured by the Bureau through the National Archives
where General Records Schedule does not apply. Records so designated for des-
truction have been found to possess no significant historical, intelligence, informa-
tive or research value and, therefore, do not merit retention.
Accomplishmenis:
Records destroyed equal to 1,301 file cabinets.
5. Destruction of Bulky Exhibits. — The purpose of this program is to destroy
those file enclosures which because of their size cannot be maintained in a normal
size file cabinet and which do not merit continued retention.
Accomplishments;
Exhibits destroyed equal the approximate size of 7.5.6 file cabinets.
6. Microfilming. — The purpose of this program is to reduce to micro form that
record material which cannot be destroyed because of continued usefulness but
where the use is limited. The goal is to reduce space occupied by those records
based on the limited amount of use given them.
Accomplishments :
Record material destroyed equals 2,009 cabinets.
7. Main Card Rehabilitation. — The purpose of this continuing program is to
make the index most responsive to the needs of all users. Since 19.'i7, this program
has included a system to automatically capture for the index record identifying
data which was not available at the time the initial index record was prepared.
For those index records prepared prior to 19.)7, research has been conducted to go
back to the source document and capture identifying data not previously recorded
in the index.
8. Records Disposal Committee. — The Records Disposal Committee has the re-
sponsibility to identify, through research and analysis, record material which no
longer serves any useful purpose on the basis of intelligence, informative, historical
or research value. Appropriate authority is then secured to dispose of this material.
The Chairman. From the inception of the FBI?
Mr. Gray. That is right. We do have a records management section
in the FBI. I earlier answered the question and said we don't expunge.
But. in accordance with that records management program, which I
have made an insert in the record, Mr. Chairman, and be permitted to
explain
The Chairman. That would be everybod}" in the military service
since the FBI
Mr. Gray. That is right.
The Chairman. When was the inception of the FBI?
Mr. Gray. 1908 was the beginning.
Senator Fong. Then, as to the general public, you actually don t
have any files?
Mr. Gray. Not unless they fall in one of these categories we have
been discussing this morning or unless a letter, anonymous letter
comes in about some individual or informant type information comes
in about some individual.
Senator Fong. Many citizens volunteer to have their finger-
prints
Mr. Gray. That is correct, Senator.
181
Senator Fong (continuing). Filed with the FBI?
Mr. Gray. That is correct.
wSenator Fong. How man}^ million would you say?
Mr. Gray. I don't know, I would have to furnish that for the
record. I believe we could acquire that information, I am not sure we
even have it now.
(Mr. Gray subsequently submitted the following document for the
record :)
Mr. Gray. As of February 1, 1973, our civil fingerprint file contained finger-
prints of 5,778,171 individuals who have submitted their fingerprints to us for
personal identification purposes. During the past fiscal year (July 1, 1971 to
June 30, 1972) 13,640 individuals submitted their fingerprints to us for personal
identification purposes.
Senator Fong. That would be for their own safety and own identi-
fication?
Mr. Gray. That is correct, sir.
Senator Fong. How much does the FBI do in regard to missing
persons and trying to locate missing persons? As to persons who have
died, how much work does the FBI do in trying to find out who they
are?
Mr. Gray. I would have to get a measurement on that for you,
Senator. I know we do considerable. We do considerable disaster work.
We are always sending disaster teams out whenever major disasters
occur to assist in the identification of persons.
(Mr. Gray subsequentl}' submitted the following document for the
record :)
Mr. Gray. Through our fingerprint files we are able to provide many humani-
tarian services. For example, during the past fiscal year (July 1, 1971 to June 20,
1972) our Identification Division received the fingerprints of 21,266 deceased
individuals, many of whom were unlvno^\^l deceased. Of this number, the finger-
prints of 18,737 were of good enough quality to permit a search through our files
and 11,654 or 62% were positiveh^ identified by lingei-prints. Included in this
number were many individuals who had no arrest recoi ds and they were identified
witli fingerprints maintained in our civil file. A number of the deceased lingerprints
were from the military services in connection with Vietnam casualties.
The FBI Disaster Squad, which renders on-the-scene assistance in identifying
victims of disasters, was formed in 1940. Since January 1, 1959, the Disaster
Squad has assisted with identification problems in 86 disasters involving airplane
crashes, ship accidents, fires, explosions, hurricanes, floods and bus accidents.
Fingerprints or palm prints were secured from an estimated 2,277 victims, exact
number unknown because of dismemberment, and 1,604 or 70.44% were positively
identified by fingerprints or palm prints. Many of these identifications were made
witli fingerprints maintained in our civil file.
Other humanitarian uses made of our fingerprint files involve identification of
amnesia victims, assisting in establishing an individual's veteran's status so that
he or she may qualify for veteran's benefits, establishing positive identity of
individuals seeking to qualify for benefits vmder Civil Service regulations and social
security. Althougli we are not autliorized to conduct active investigation to locate
missing persons, we do place stops in our fingerprint files, on request, so that
relatives may be advised shoiild information as to the location of the missing
persons come to our attention through our fingerprint files. At present we have
approximately 6,000 missing persons stop notices in our fingerprint files and during
the past fiscal year (July 1, 1971 to June 30, 1972) 1,202 such notices were added to
the file while 1,452 notices were cancelled. We have received many heart-warming
letters from individuals who have located missing relatives through this service.
Senator Fong. As FBI Director, would you say that the average
American citizen does not have an}^ thing to fear from the FBI?
Mr. Gray. This is my belief. I don't believe it is shared by everyone
but it is shared by the majority of the people of the United States.
182
Senator Fong. And the average American who feels the FBI is an
overpowering institution and it is scary, they have no reason to
beheve that?
Mr. Gray. Quite to the contrar}'. From ever^'thing that I have
learned in the 10 months that I have been there, and in talking with
FBI headquarters peoj^ie and in the field, and from hearing from
citizens throughout the United States, I feel that the reputation of the
FBI is extremely high and its services are valued by the American
people.
Senator Fong. They feel that the FBI is a friendly agency rather
than a hostile one?
Mr. Gray. That is my belief, Senator, and I think it is shared by
the majority of the American people.
Senator Fong. Mr. Gray, you have been accused of not doing your
level best in the Watergate case. You have stated to this committee
that all the raw files are available to us; is that connect?
Mr. Gray. I made the statement that they were available to the
members, and I would provide two thoroughly experienced agents to
sit down wath the members and respond to any questions that the
members might have and assist the members in going over those
files. Once again, I am exercising what caution I deem to be prudent
here to restrict the need to know because of the information. It in-
volves people, a lot of the information has not been subject to trial, a
lot of those people have not been indicted, and I just feel this is the
prudent way to do it.
Senator Fong. You feel you have investigated this case without
bias, with all of the usual procedures that you ordinarily follow in any
other investigation?
Mr. Gray. The truth of the matter, Senator, is if I had not done so,
morale in the FBI would not be what it is today nor would I be in
this seat. People would have blo\M3. me right out of the water long
before now. That is the practical truth of the matter. The men and
women of the FBI would not tolerate my coming in there and trying
to steer or guide that investigation, and I say that any one of the top
executives of the Federal Bureau of Investigation would come here
before this committee and would testify to that under oath.
Senator Fong. Your bosses are the Attorney" General and the
President of the United States, are they not?
Mr. Gray. That is correct. Senator. I am a Bureau Chief in the
Justice Department under the executive branch of the Government.
Senator Fong. If the Attorney General wishes to have a file, an
FBI file, on an indi^^[dual because of an investigation of that indi\ddual,
you would make that available to the Justice Department; is that
correct?
Mr. Gray. I would make the information available to the Attorney
General as we do in the regular course of business with all of the
Assistant Attorneys General, the Criminal Division, the Civil Div-
ison and the Civil Rights Division. We actually do the investigating
for them. We work for them.
Senator Fong. If the Attorney General asked for it, you will make
it available to him?
Mr. Gray. Yes, sir.
183
Senator Fong. That has been a standard practice of the FBI all
these years?
Air. Gray. From the inception; yes, sir.
Senator Fong. And, if the President of the United States %\T.shes
to have an FBI file delivered to him, would it be delivered to him?
Mr. Gray. That would be delivered to liim.
wSenator Fong. Is that standard practice?
Mr. Gray. It is not. That is not the w^ay it occurs, that is not the
way it is usually done. It is usually done by submitting the memo-
randa that we do submit and on occasion permitting review of the
actual interview sheets themselves, depending upon the nature of the
situation.
Senator Fong. The White House has from time to time asked for
certain files, has it not?
Mr. Gray. Oh, that is correct. They don't get files as such. You
know, like I wouldn't take all these Watergate files as such and shunt
them all over there. In this particular case we gave a letterhead
memorandum to the Attorney General which, I have every reason to
believe, was sent to Mr. Dean. Then later on I gave Mr. Dean the
interview reports in the Watergate, but I didn't give him all the
other memoranda and all the other documents that we have in con-
nection A\dth the files.
Senator Fong. So, when a communication comes from the Wliite
House to give certain persons in high authority a certain file or a
memorandum of a file, 3'ou would do that?
Mr. Gray. Rarely would we give them the file, but we would give
them the memorandum on the case when it is recpiested, yes.
vSenator Gurney. Would the Senator vield?
Senator Fong. Yes, I would.
Senator Gurney. Mr. Gray, this word "interview" has been used,
interview reports; what does that mean?
Mr. Gray. That is an FD-302. When an agent interviews an
individual he writes out the report of the interview, what the indivi-
dual told him.
Senator Gurney. This is not a cpiestion and answer thing. It is a
sA'nopsis of what testimony the agent took?
Mr. Gray. That is right. He writes it out, "Joe Blow advised us,"
and it goes on and on about what he advised us.
Senator Fong. I see. You don't know whether what is said is true
or not?
Mr. Gray. Sir?
Senator Fong. You don't know whether what is said is true or not?
Mr. Gray. Oh, no, we only take what the individual tells us,
because we have no way — this is a report of an agent intervievvdng an
individual.
Senator Fong. In the case of Mr. Dean, who was representing the
President of the iJnited States, his receiving this memorandum from
you was a usual procedure?
Mr. Gray. That was the usual procedure, that it went to the
Attorney General and then to him.
Senator Fong. I see.
Mr. Gray. Because he didn't ask — that letterhead memorandum
was not really requested b}' him. He wanted information regarding
184
the case later on. We discussed the letterhead memorandum and I
said, "I ^\^ll prepare it for the Attorney General and 3'ou discuss that
with the Attorney General."
Senator Fong. He got that letter from the Attorney General?
Mr. Gray. I believe he did. I cannot testify under oath as to a
fact because I do not know whether or not that LHM as we call it
was sent over to him.
Senator Fong. What happened after that you do not know?
Mr. Gray. No, I do not know.
Senator Fong. You did what 3-ou were told to do?
Mr. Gray. That is correct.
Senator Fong. You followed procedure in doing that?
Mr. Gray. That is correct.
Senator Fong. When you submitted that letter to the Attorney
General, it was the proper thing for vou to do?
Mr. Gray. Yes, sir, that is the LHM of July 21, 1972.
Senator Fong. This chars-e that Mr. Segretti got hold of that
interview memo; you had nothing to do with that?
Mr. Gray. Well, he didn't — you know, the charge varies as to
what the newspapers sa}^ about it, and I don't know what occurred
with Mr. Segretti.
Senator Fong. So, you don't know?
Mr. Gray. No; I do not.
Senator Fong. Now, you have also been charged v/ith making
quite a few partisan speeches, and especialh' two speeches. One was
given before the Rotarv Club in Montana — Butte, Mont., on wSep-
tem-ber 7, 1972, and the other on August 11, 1972, before the City
Club of Cleveland. Your title in the September 7, 1972, address was
"A Nation That Cares," and your title of the August 11, 1972, City
Club of Cleveland speech was "Freedom L'nder Law."
I noted that your speeches were quite short. Thev ran to 12 to 15
minutes; is that correct?
Mr. Gray. Well, the way I talk. Senator, they go 15 to 20 minutes.
They usually run 20 pages triple space all caps, and that is about
20 minutes.
Senator Fong. I see.
Now, the speech that 3"0U made to the Rotary Club in Butte, iNIont.,
"A Nation That Cares," I have read it very, very carefully. I woulil
like to pick out some of the things in it which are outstanding. You
said :
This evening I want to talk about A Nation That Cares, a Nation which is
concerned about its citizens, their welfare, their happiness, their dignity as human
beings.
In our 20th century world these are among the salient questions facing mankind:
What kind of society do we want?
What kind of countrj^ is America going to become?
Does our government care about our people? Does it listen?
Is it a sensitive society, wanting to make life more significant and meaningful for
every man, woman and child?
Then you went on to say :
We realize that unless people care — about themselves, about others, aboiit their
values and traditions — our country will die.
This is why America is today a great and respected Nation.
185
Then voii said:
Uufortunatel.y, there are today a small minority of Americans — ^not many but a
few — who bitterly and falsely denounce our countrjr as cruel, sick, callous, and
repressive.
The}' want to create the impression that our government is an ogre, a monster
which simply doesn't care.
Another prominent educator has publicly denounced our national
leaders — and I ask, did he mean just the President? But to continue,
3'ou said:
Our national leaders as not giving — in his words — "any clear sign of compassion
or concern for the poor, the weak, the sick, the unemployed, the helpless. . . ."
When you referred to "national leaders," it was to the whole general
scheme of things; was it not?
Mr. Gray. Right; the three branches of Government, and I was
addressing myself to the general attack on our institutions.
Senator Fong. You were citing what others had said, what a prom-
inent educator said, and you continued:
Another speaks of a "selfish and oblivious ruling Establishment."
And you said:
This is extremist rhetoric.
It is not based on facts.
It deals in overkill, emotion, and flamboyance.
It seeks to set group against group, citizen against citizen.
You said:
These detractors aim not at reform of our institutions, but at their destruction.
Then you go on to say:
In my opinion the vast majority of Americans are becoming tired of this quack-
ing chorus of pessimism, cj^nicism, and lack of faith.
Is there anything there to boost the Republican Party?
Mr. Gray. Well, I certainly didn't believe so. I believe that I was
talking about our Government. I certaiuh" went at it in that manner,
and that was the feeling in m}^ heart and the intent in ni}' mind. I \\dll
admit though. Senator Fong, that others can read that differently.
Senator Fong. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gray. But I would say under oath; no.
Senator Fong. There was nothing to boost the Republican Party?
Mr. Gray. No; absolutel}' not.
Senator Fong. And to boost the President?
Mr. Gray. Absolutel}'^ not.
Senator Fong. Then you go on to say:
Since World War II the taxpayers of this countr}' have provided approximately
$130 billion in loans and outright grants to other nations. This has gone not just
to our strongest and closest allies, but roost especially to weaker nations most in
need of it.
Then you go on and say:
Again, what other country has found a means to send people of ability' and
dedication to help emerging nations around the world in their efforts to elevate
their waj^ of life, without asking anything whatsoever in return?
4: :!: 4: 4: H: ^ 4:
What other people supports anywhere near the variety of charitable causes
and contributes an j^ where near the proportio 1 of its resources for such causes? I
refer to approximately $20 billion per year in private contributions to health,
welfare, educational, and religious institutio.is.
186
And you go on to sa}^:
America is NOT a selfish, unconcerned societj^ that does not care.
Then you say :
I like the quotation attributed to Lowell Thomas: "He who allows a day to
pass without practicing generosity . . .," he said, "is hke a blacksmith's bellows —
he breathes but does not live."
This is the spirit of A NATION THAT CARES.
In our democratic society, however, the concept of service takes on a dimension
beyond material assistance.
Its greater gift is to provide a climate of freedom in which every individual may
j:)ursue his own hopes, dreams and aspirations, and may work out his own destiny
as a human being.
* * * * * * *
What other country has made such a determined effort to combat discrimina-
tion and assure equal opportunity for all persons regardless of race, color, or
religion?
Then you say :
Finally, the gift of individual freedom and equal opportunity that we enjoy
derives primarily from the free government that we have maintained for two
centuries. By that I mean a government in which the individual is protected in
his freedoms and his personal goals by laws that he or his representative helped
to make. Contrary to the opinion of some, law is not the enemy of freedom. Law
guarantees freedom against invasion by others.
Then you go on to say what the country is doing. I don't find any-
thing here boosting the RepubUcan Party, do you?
Mr. Gray. No, sir, I didn't think there was at the time I put the
speech together, and I still don't think it was. I would repeat again
for this committee that I was admonished by the Attorney General,
who said to me that "Some people in the White House said they think
you were making too many speeches," and I said I am going to stand
up, and I am going to talk for America, and that was exactly my
response.
Senator Fong. Yes.
Now in the other speech, before the City Club of Cleveland, you
spoke on "Freedom Under Law" and
The Chairman. The chairman will be gone for a few minutes. When
you conclude, Senator Kennedy will be recognized.
Senator Fong. Thank you.
You said:
Today the attack continues — for the concept of free men and women governing
themselves for the common good is virtually as radical in the 20 Century as it
was in the twilight of the 18th. And make no mistake — it is radical doctrine!
Our concept of freedom under law is banned, barred, forbidden and feared in
vast areas of the world where might makes right — where suppression wears the
uniform of the police and the robes of justice.
Then you go on and say :
We are on the threshold of the greatest growth pattern in our history — growth
in the quality of life for all our citizens — growth in our total effort to eradicate
the imperfections in human society (beginning, always, with our own).
Then you say:
We occupy 7 percent of the land surface of the earth. We are 6 percent of the
world's population. We account for almost one-third of the goods and services
produced on earth.
187
Then you go on to talk about forces of American technology and
you say all have the promise for indixdduals, and you say;
Every citizen of the United States is guaranteed legal rights and protections of
a magnitude not found anywhere else in the world.
All have the promise of individual rights and liberties.
All have an awareness of those rights and liberties.
All have a guarantee of opportunity to full realization of their rights and liberties
And you say:
No, pessimism does not yet reign supreme in these United States.
But there are those who insist that our joriceless liberties are being eroded —
that freedom is increasingly in jeopardy across the United States.
Is there any pro-Re]Hiblican Party doctrine in that?
Mr. Gray. I didn't believe so, Senator.
Senator Bayh. Would the Senator yield for just a moment?
Senator Fong. .Surely.
Senator Bayh. I don't want to impose on the Senator, but
Senator Foxg. I am very happy to yield.
Senator Bayh. But inasmuch as the ilistinguished Acting Director
and I got involved in a little discussion on this yesterday, I think
perhaps it shoidd be pointed out to my friend from HaA\'aii that one
of those ^\ho was concerned about certain activities that were taking
])lace involving Government moving in on the rights of individuals
happened to be the Presidential candidate for the opposition party.
Now jjerhaps that might put the remarks of the Acting Director in a
little different context when those remarks were made a month or so
before the election, and in a forum in which that presidential candi-
date himself had appeared, and in a forum where the following week
the ^"ice-presidential candidate of the o]:)])osition party appeared. That
was the concern expressed by the Senator from Indiana.
I appreciate the courtesy of my friend from Hawaii.
Mr. Gray. If I ma}^ say so, I accepted this speech long before there
was any thought of a political campaign in my mind and I went out
and made that speech not knowing that either of those two individuals
was going to be there. I had no knowledge of that and certainl}^ I had
no knowledge that I was making any attack in any waj". I was speak-
ing as an American citizen telling what I feel within me, Senator Ba3-h.
Senator Bayh. Well, Mr. Gray, we discussed that yesterda}^
Mr. Gray. Yes, I know we did.
Senator Bayh. I don't want to impose on the Senator from Hawaii,
but you were concerned enough with it to check that it was nonpoliti-
cal.
Mr. Gray. That is right, so I won't get into a thicket.
Senator Bayh. Whoever did that job for you didn't do enough of a
job to show you that the opposition candidates were going to be there,
and you did have a request in the administration memorandum which
we requested yesterday saying that in the minds of this administration
this was a ver}^ important political forum, and pointed out that two
previous administration siuTogates had been there. I suggest, with all
respect, if I didn't yesterday, that perhaps at least in the futiu'e if the
White House, whoever is sitting there, suggests that a forum would be
an important political forum maybe e nonpartisan Federal Bureau of
Investigation Director ought to sa}^, "That is good enough for me, we
188
have had these invitations since 1968, I will wait and not accept this
until 1973."
Mr. Gray. That is asking too much for humanity. I did have the
thought it would be a political thicket and I did check, the memoran-
dum is in the record, and there is no indication in that memorandum
there were an}^ political opportunities or overtures, or anything of the
rest of it, Senator Bayh. I am just respectfully differing with you,
and you know that.
vSenator Bayh. Well, I will not impose on Senator Fong's time but
when my time comes I will read the memorandum once again. It is in
the record, but I w^ant everyone to have a chance to hear it and then
make his own assessment as to why the administration was sending
that memorandum out.
Mr. Gray. Senator Bayh, may I ask as a courtesy when you read
that from Mr. O'Donnell, would j^ou read mine from the Crime Re-
search Division too, so we have both sides of it. Or I will read it if I
may, Mr. Chairman, at the appropriate time.
Senator Fong. Mr. Gray, to continue with m}^ line of questions, I
don't see any pro-Republicanism here in 3'our speech and I don't
think you did intend any.
Mr. Gray. I did not.
Senator Fong. Mr. Gray, I want to commend j^ou for the very
long, detailed, and excellent statement which you gave to this com-
mittee yesterday. Your statement yesterday has given this committee
a very good insight into what changes j^ou have made in the FBI and
what you have done during the 10 months you have served as the
Director.
Some people object to change but we live in a world of change and
there is no reason why there shouldn't be changes even in the great
institution that Mr. Hoover left to you. Your statement of what the
objectives and the function of the FBI are and should be in our free
society meets \\ith my very hearty approval.
Yoii have given me a very deep insight into your thinking as an
American, and with this thinking I concur heartily.
I want to commend you for being willing to talk to the public by
making so many speeches on your taking over the Office of Director.
I believe you have opened the windows and doors and let the public
know more about the FBI and you as a person than would have other-
wise been possible.
I have not found your speeches to be partisan for the Republican
Party. I have read them, scanned some, studied some, and I think I
would say that they were pro-American speeches and not pro-Repub-
lican Party speeches. I know it is very difficult to be pro-American
\nthout being accused of being pro-administration or pro-Republican.
I know to be pro-American you must emphasize the positive in Amer-
ica and not disparage it. This you have done admirably in your
speeches and I congratulate 3'ou for them.
I do hope you will continue to make public speeches after your con-
fu-mation. As you know, the FBI in the eyes of our people is a scary
and a very overwhelming and overpo^^•ering institution, and your
position as Director of the FBI carries with it awesome and fearful
powers. That is why you must as a Director always let the American
189
peoj^le know yon are human, that you are communicative, and that
you are not aloof and despotic.
From your candid responses to the hard questions which have been
put to you and the answers that you have given to them, I do not see
any reason why I shoukl not vote for your confirmation.
However, I will keep my mind open until the end of our hearings
to see whether this opimon will need to be changed by testimony the
nature of which I may not be aware of at this time.
Thank you, Mr. Gray.
Mr. Gray. Thank you. Senator Fong.
Senator Kennedy. I have some questions, Mr. Gray, which I did
not have a chance to ask you yesterday, but Senator Biu'dick has to
leave shortly and has one or two. With the indulgence of my colleagues,
he will ask his and then I will ask mine.
Senator Burdick. Mr. Gray, earlier this morning you testified about
arrest records. As you probably know, my subcommittee has been
dealing with this subject. The citizens of this Nation are all told of a
presumption of innocence so actually an arrest record itself, standing
alone, does not mean anything. I think you also testified that in these
matters of the arrest records were not made ])ublic. What instances are
there when they are made available to an3'body?
Mr. Gray. Well, there are just not instances where they are made
available to anybody. But a contributor may come in with a finger-
print card and ask us for a report on this particular individual and
on the card there will be a charge, he has been arrested, and a criminal
charge has been placed against him. There will be some reason for
arresting him and this arrest reason would show ou the card. What
we would do, Senator Burdick, is to see whether we had a record on
this individual, we would check it through our fingerprint section,
and if we had one we would look to see what the arrest record was.
In some of them, you know, he may have six, seven, eight, nine, ten,
all kinds of felonies, and you may have over in the disposition column
three or four dispositions and maybe the balance not showing dis-
positions. Or you ma}^ have a situation in which when you check you
find we have no piior arrest record, this is the first arrest and we will
report that, or in the other case
Senator Burdick. To whom do you report it?
Mr. Gray. Back to the police department, the contributor who
contributed the fingerprint card.
Senator Burdick. Then the police in Fargo, N. Dak., would have
a record of any one of the citizens who merely had been arrested?
Mr. Gray. They have to be arrested for a reason, there has to be a
charge placed against them. That is standard procedure under the
laws of the State of North Dakota. I assume when an individual is
arrested for criminal charges he is probably fingerprinted and photo-
graphed. I don't know wdiat the law is in North Dakota but that
police agency in North Dakota would undoubtedly proceed in accord-
ance with the laws or ordinances of the State or city in North Dakota.
Senator Burdick. Suppose that individual is later acquitted or
the case is dropped for lack of evidence, is that shown anywhere?
Mr. Gray. Well, it is shown provided that the contributor follows
through, and we exhort in all of our letters^ — which I will put into the
record as I promised earlier, I think in response to questions from
91-331—73—13
190
Senator Timney — we will show the exhortations we have made.
We will show that in our police training instructors' lectures out
there in the field we stress this. We will show that our Special Agents
in Charge in their speeches stress this. But we have no sanctions
available to us, that is correct.
(Mr. Gray subsequently submitted the following documents for
the record :)
Mr. Gray: I am submitting the following documents for the record. (Letters
to All Fingerprint Contributors dated April 2, 1962; vSeptember 23, 1966; No-
vember 21, 1968; June 2, 1971; July 22, 1971; and October 2, 1972, which pertain
to reporting arrest disposition data.) As I have pointed out, there are no procedures
in existence to assure Nation-wide reporting of dispositions. We have long ex-
horted all contributors to follow up with final dispositions on all arrests. Material
relating to this subject is made available to our field and headquarters personnel
for their use in connection with police training programs, speaking engagements
before groups associated with the criminal justice system and in their day-to-day
contact with law enforcement officials. The FBI has actively advocated legislation
at the Federal and state levels making it mandatory for the contributors to provide
disposition data on everj' arrest. The International Association of Chiefs of Police
and the International Association for Identification adopted resolutions presented
by the FBI that their members encourage their respective communities to support
enactment of legislation to mandate the reporting of final arrest disposition data
applicable to each arrest and that such data be sent by the arresting agency, the
prosecutor or the court at whatever step it occurs to the central file at the state or
national level to which an arrest fingerprint record was submitted. The resolutions
also encouraged all criminal justice agencies to make every effort to submit
disposition data in each instance until such mandatorj' legislation is enacted. Some
twenty-three states plus the District of Columbia now have varying laws or regu-
lations to require contributors to report dispositions, but all are not complying
because of staffing or budgetary problems and there are no sanctions for noncom-
pliance.
U.S. Department of Justice,
Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Washington, B.C., October 2, 1972.
Letter to All Fingerprint Contributors RE Identification Services
MULTIPLE SUBMISSIONS OF FINGERPRINT CARDS
Dear Sir: The FBI Identification Division has been striving to have each arrest
reported on the identification record supported by submission of fingerprints and to
have each arrest entry on the identification record followed by the final disposition
of that arrest. When fingerprint cards are submitted by the arresting agency and
also by custodial agencies such as the county jail or other institutions, the identi-
fication records (rap sheets) may contain one or more additional arrest entries which
duplicate the original arrest card submitted by the arresting agency and for which
a final disposition will not be forthcoming. There are also some departments which
submit separate arrest fingerprint cards on different charges resulting from a single
arrest of an individual. The arrest fingerprint card (FD-249) is designed to ac-
commodate additional charges resulting from a single arrest and should be used to
list such charges.
All multijjle fingerprint card submissions, in addition to causing entries to be
placed in the identification record for which dispositions will not be forthcoming,
require costly expenditure of clerical manpower to locate fingerprint jackets which
are out of file for processing of the arrest fingerprint card submitted first by the
arresting agency and delay the production schedules and procedures devised to
handle the large dsaly volume of fingerprint cards received by the Identification
Division.
Although the multiple submissions of fingerprint cards may provide a record of
incarceration prior to or following court adjudications, it is believed such entries
into an identification record serve little useful purpose in the overall maintenance
of a national criminal records sj'stem. Your close and continuing cooperation in
eliminating this problem of multiple submissions is solicited. If the jailer requires
a cop.v of the identification record, this can easily be accommodated b}' appropri-
ate notation on the reverse side of the arrest fingerprint card.
191
TELEPHONE REPLIES
When the appropriate block on the FD-249 indicates collect telephone reply-
is desired, it is requested that the nanxe of the officer desiring this information
and his telephone extension also be indicated. This additional data will enable us
to comply with your request without encountering unnecessary delays in having
collect telephone calls accepted.
AUTOMATION PROCEDURES REQUIRE STANDARDIZATION OF FINGERPRINT CARDS
Your attention is directed to our letter to all fingerprint contributors dated
November 9, 1971, captioned "Redesign of Arrest Fingerprint Card." All contri-
butors have been furnished a supply of the redesigned arrest fingerprint card,
FD-249, (printed in red ink) which was revised to accommodate the imple-
mentation of automated procedures in the Identification Division as well as to
better adapt the card to use within the Computerized Criminal History system.
The old FD-249 (printed in black ink) does not provide space to record certain
identification elements required by these automated systems. Similar objections
applj' to use by some departments of fingerprint cards not prepared to speci-
fications of the revised FD-249 and not preprinted with the code number re-
presenting the address of the contributor (ORI). Accordingly, you are requested
to destroy any remaining supply of the old FD-249 arrest card and immediatelj^
institute use of the redesigned arrest fingerprint card (FD-249) which is printed
in red ink. Adequate supplies of the redesigned card are available and will be
furnished to you with your preprinted address upon request.
The applicant fingerprint card, FD-258, is in the process of being revised and
will be printed in blue ink. You should continue to use the old FD-258 (printed
in black ink) until you receive a supply of the revised FD-258.
The changes in the colors of the inks used to print the revised arrest (FD-249)
and applicant (FD-258) fingerprint cards were made to accommodate optical
scanning equipment which will read certain printed codes and, in the future, the
fingerprint impressions. This equipment has been designed to detect only black
printer's ink and printed instructions and lines of the revised cards, in their
respective colors; thus will not interfere with its capabilities. Some contributors-
have submitted fingerprint impressions which have been made with other than
black printer's ink. In order for the optical scanning equipment to function as
designed, it is absolutely necessary that all fingerprint impressions which are
submitted to the FBI Identification Division be made only with black printer's ink.
REPORTING ARREST DISPOSITION DATA
During the recent annual meeting of the International Association for Identi-
fication (lAI) held in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, July 31 through August 3, 1972^
the following resolution was approved:
RESOLUTION
Whereas incomplete criminal identification records are of grave con-
cern to the general public, the courts, and all agencies which comprLse
the criminal justice system, be it resolved:
(1) That lAI members encourage their respective communities to
support the enactment of legislation to mandate the reporting of final
arrest disposition data applicable to each arrest and that such data be sent
by the arresting agency, the prosecutor, or the court at whatever stage
it occurs to the central file at the state or National level to which an arrest
fingerprint record was submitted.
(2) That until such mandatory legislation becomes law appropriate
criminal justice agencies make every effort to submit arrest disposition
data in each instance.
As the central repository of identification data in this country, the FBI Identi-
fication Division urges each contributor to follow and report the final dispositiont
of each arrest made by your department. Dismissals and "not guilty" adjudications
are as necessary as conviction data in completing an identification record of an.
individual so his record may reflect accurately the final result of charges filed
alleging violation of the law. It is the incomplete record that invites criticism of
our entire criminal justice records system.
192
The Identification Division has noted a marked increase in submissions of
disposition data since distribution of the revised Final Disposition Report, Pi,-S4,
was made in July, 1971. This form was designed to accompany the arrestee's
record on the pending charge(s) until final adjudication resulted and thus permits
the court, the prosecutor or the police to complete the form at whatever level the
final disposition of the charge (s) was made. Although an increased number of
Final Disposition Rej^orts have been received, many departments continue to
afford this vital link in our criminal records system low priority. You are lequested
to bring this matter to the attention of all personnel having responsibility for
reporting disposition data. Also, this form should be used to show any change in
the nature of the charge for which conviction s\'as obtained from the original
charge apoearing on the arrest fingerprint card.
Very truly yours,
L. Patrick Gray III, Acting Director.
U.S. Department of Justice,
Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Washington, B.C., July 22, 1971.
Letter to All Fingerprint Contributors Re FBI Identification Services
Dear Sir: The follo^\ing items are of immediate concern to all of us in law
.enforcement. We solicit your cooperation in implementing those changes requested.
FBI number
Effective immediately all criminal fingerprint Cards requiring an answer will
be given an FBI number if one has not been assigned previously. As you know,
the practice in the past has been to assign such a number upon receipt of the
second set of prints. A number now will be assigned vq^on receipt of the first set.
This change is deemed desirable in view of the Computerized Criminal History
Program scheduled for implementation this November, wherein the FBI number
is a necessary element for entry into the system. The new procedure also slK)uld
materially aid in curtailing multiple fingerprint submissions applicable to the
same arrest or incarceration. Such submissions lead to the costly and time-con-
suming task of locating fingerprint jackets which are out of file as a result of the
original fingerprint submission. The key to alleviating this problem of multiple
submissions is close cooperation and effort by all.
DISCLOSURE OF FBI IDENTIFICATION RECORDS TO SUBJECTS
There has been some misunderstanding on the part of certain fingerprint
contributors concerning disclosure of the contents of FBI identification records
to the subjects of those records. Some law enforcement agencies have been under
the impression that they would be denied future access to FBI identification
records if they were to comply with a court order directing that a subject be
permitted to examine the contents of his own record. Whereas the records them-
selves, or copies thereof, should not be furnisiied and the caution to treat such
records for official use only should be strictly adhered to, certainly compliance
with a court order constitutes an official use. Please insure there is no misunder-
standing within your own agency or on the part of other criminal justice agencies
that the FBI does not object to disclosure of the contents of an FBI identification
record to the subject of that record where disclosure is made pursuant to court
order in any pending criminal or civil case.
NON-FEDERAL APPLICANT FINGERPRINTS
Acting on remand in Menard v. Mitchell, 430 F 2d 486 (1970), United States
District Judge Gerhard A. Gesell, District of Columbia, on June 1.1, 1971, handed
down a Memorandum Opinion in this case (Civil Action No. 39-68) whicli pro-
hibits the FBI from disseminating identification records in response to finger-
193
prints submitted by state and local law enforcement and other government
agencies in connection with non-law enforcement purposes. This prohibition also
extends to Federally insured banks and savings and loan institutions as well as
railroad police. This means that effective immediately the FBI can no longer
accept for processing fingerprints taken in connection with licensing or local
or state employment which were formerly submitted directly to the FBI from the
regulatory agency or institution or through a local law enforcement agency. We
will continue to process applicant prints where the position sought is directly
with a state or local law enforcement or correctional agency, as such processing
directly serves a law enforcement purpose. There are no other exceptions.
In examining the issue of historic statutory authority for the Government to
engage in such practice, the court observed "it is abundantly clear that Congress
never intended to or in fact did authorize dissemination of arrest records to any
state or local agency for jourposes of employment or licensing checks." He further
noted "the Bureau (FBI) needs legislative guidance and there must be a national
policy developed in this area which will have built into it adequate sanctions and
administrative safeguards. It is not the function of the courts to make these judg-
inents, but the courts must call a halt until the legislature acts. Thus tlie court
finds that the Bureau is without authority to disseminate arrest records outside
the Federal Government for employment, licensing or related purposes."
In its study and review of the court's action, the FBI has sought and obtained
guidance and interpretation from the Department of Justice. There appears to be
no choice but to cease processing all types of non-Federal applicant fingerprints.
You will be promptly advised of any Congressional clarification of the Bureau's
authority in this area. In the meanwhile all such fingerprint submissions will be
returned to the contributing agency,
ARREST DISPOSITION DA'fA
The response to our letter of June 2, 1971, urging the submission of final arresi
disposition data has been most gratifying. We have received numerous favorable
replies pledging full cooperation, offei'ing suggestions and asking questions. One
question frequently raised is whether arrest fingerprint cards should be held by the-
contributor until final disposition is known, which in some instances may take'
months and even years. The answer, of course, is to submit arrest fingerprint-
cards promptly and follow with disposition information when it is available. In-
this way you can receive any identification record the individual may have in
response to your fingerprint submission, and fugitives against whose fingerprints
stops have been placed in our files will be promptly identified. Another point not
vniiversally understood is that disposition information should only be sent to the
FBI when arrest fingerprints for the same offense were forwarded previously.
Otherwise, we have nothing in our files to support the final disposition supplied.
A third point I want to stress is that disposition submissions should be individual
separate communications and not in list form. The reason for this is that the forms
are filed in individual jackets relating to each subject of an FBI number.
In our continuing effort to obtain complete reporting of final dispositions, we
have redesigned the final disposition report (form R-84), a sample of which is set
forth in reduced size as an attachment to this communication. The most radical
change is that as now designed, the form is to accompany the case file (or the
arresting officer's report) so that the final disposition can be reported in each
case at whatever level it occurs — police, prosecutor, or court. We recognize that the
adoption of such procedure will require an educational program with criminal
justice agencies. The disposition form will follow the arrestee's record on the cur-
rent charge (s) until final action is taken as a result of his arrest. If the case goes to
the prosecutor, his office should complete the form and submit it to the FBI
Identification Division when the matter is resolved at his level. If court action is
required, the prosecutor's office or clerk of the court should complete the form and
forward it. Note particularly the provision for four-finger fingerprint impressions
and instruction number two on the reverse side of the form. This provision was
included in anticipation of a possible future requirement that records of con-
victions in the National repository he supported by fingerprints. Also, of course,
more p-isitive controls are thereby provided for the entire svstem. The actual size
of the form will be the same as a fingerprint card, namely, 8 inches by 8 inches.
194
For the sake of uniformity and standardization, particularly in light of the
tremendous volumes of forms handled by the FBI Identification Division, it is
essential that the new form be utilized by all contributors in reporting final
dispositions. The new R-84 form is being printed on green stock and as soon as
copies are available an initial supply will be sent to each fingerprint contributor.
Thereafter, you should order the form as you need additional copies.
Very truly yours,
John Edgar Hoover, Director.
Enclosure.
Leave Blank '
,R-84(Rev. 6-29'71) FINAL DISPOSITION REPORT
1 Hole: This vital report must ne propori^H on each individual whose arreat rmgerprints have been forwarrfcd
.to the FBI Identificfltion Division without rmal disposition noted thereon. If no tinal disposition is Qvail-
'able to arresting aRoncy, also obtain subject's right four linger impressions or. this form, complete left side
^aiid forward the form whtn case referred to prosecuior nud/or courts. Agency on notice .t.-. to fuial disposition should complete this
■ fomi ;md submit to: Diiecfor, FBI, Woshingfon, D. C. 20537, Attention: Identilicotion Division.
<Soe instnictionfl on reverse side)
FBI No.
Final Disposition &; Date ; ■■*'''■ i j
!If convicted or subject pleaded guilty to lesser charge, include.
this modifi ~-»ll with disposition.)
Name on Fingerprint Card Subtnitted to FBI
Lost ' First
Middln
■
If FBI No. UnknoTO. Furnish:
Snv
'.F'ingerprint
Stale Bureau No. .:^
Tliis Form Submitted By:
|.(Name, Title, Agency, City «t Stole) ^
tlonlributor of Fingorprinta
AncatNo.
Dal« Arrested or Received
OffbOM* Chnrged at Arrest
'^i mature
■vDol*
Title'
I — I COURT ORDEREDEXPUNGEMENT: „ .
Return Arrest Fingerprint Card to Contributing Agency; .
Certified or Aulhenlicoted Copy of Court Order Attached.
Right Four Fingers Taken Simultaneously. ,-
Instructions
1. The purpose of this report is to record the initial data of an individual's
arrest and thereafter secure the final disposition of the arrest at the earliest
possible time from either the arresting agencv, the prosecutor or the court having
jurLsdiction. (INTERIM DISPOSITION INFORMATION, e.g., RELEASED
ON BOND, SHOULD NOT BE SUBMITTED.) The SUBJECT'S NAME,
CONTRIBUTOR AND ARREST NUMBER should be exactly the same as
they appear on the fingerprint card IN THE FILES OF THE FBI. The FBI
number should be indicated, if known. Agency ultimately making final disposition
will complete and mail form to: FBI Identification Division, Washington, D.C.
20537.
195
2. The arresting agency should fill in all arrest data on left side of form and
obtain the finger impressions of the right four fingers simultaneously. This should
be done at the same time as the full set of fingerprints are taken on the arrest
fingerprint card. If the arrest is disposed of by the arresting agency, as where the
arrestee is released without charge, then the arresting agency should fill in this
final disposition and mail form to FBI Identification Division. Of cour.se, if final
disposition is known when arrest fingerprint card is submitted it should be noted
thereon and this form is then unnecessary. In the event the case goes to the
prosecutor, this form should be forwarded to the prosecutor with arrestee's case
file.
3. The prosecutor should complete the form to show final disposition at the
prosecution level if the matter is not being referred for court action and thereafter
submit form directly to FBI Identification Division. If court action required,
the prosecutor should forward form with case file to court having jurisdiction.
4. The court should complete this form as to final court disposition such as when
arrested person is acquitted, case is dismissed, on conviction and when sentence
imposed or sentence suspended and person placed on probation.
.5. When arrested person convicted or enters guilty plea to lesser or different
offense than that charged when originally arrested, this information should be
clearly indicated.
6. if subsequent action taken to seal or expunge record, attach certified or
authenticated copy of court order to this form so that FBI can return arrestee's
fingerprints to original contributor.
7. It is vitally important for completion of subject's record in FBI Identification
Division files that Final Disposition Report be submitted in every instance where
•fingerprints previously forwarded without final disposition noted thereon.
U.S. Department of Justice,
Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Washington, B.C., Jane 2, 1971.
Letter to All Fingerprint Contributors Re Reporting Final Dispositions
Dear Sir: We ask your special attention at this time to the urgent need to re-
port a final disposition for each charge submitted to the FBI Identification Divi-
r;ion by fingerprint card. We have made this request previously, but never under
conditions of such urgencj- as those which now prevail.
The national criminal identification system is now the object of the most serious
attacks that have been launched against it since the system was inaugurated in
1924. These attacks vary somewhat in form and purpose, but they direct their fire
mainly toward the identification record that is incomplete for lack of dispositions
shown. Such records are alleged to be at best inaccurate, misleading, and of no
value, and at worst, a violation of the rights of the person on whom the record was
compiled.
The attacks are stated in several different ways. A number of civil suits have
been filed, all undecided as yet, demanding that the FBI cease dissemination of
any part of any record that is incomplete for lack of disposition shown, and/or
totally expunge from the record any notation of arrest or charge unsupported by a
disposition that is somewhere available but not shown on the record. These attacks
have come from such diverse sources as persons who allege loss of employment be-
cause of an incomplete identification record, prejudicial effect on an attempt to
obtain parole, or prejudice and harm for some other reason.
The courts now are beginning to express some concern over these incomplete
criminal identification records, and related problems. In one case an applicant
for private employment listed fourteen arrests, none of which led to convictions,
with the result that he was not hired. He alleged that the use of such information
to deny employment violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Federal court
held for the plaintiff, and enjoined the employer from using such information as a
basis for denying employment. The court said, in pertinent part, that "information
concerning a prospective employee's record of arrests without convictions is irrele-
vant to his suitability or qualifications for employment." (Emphasis added). The
court said further that nothing in its order, liowev^er, would prohibit the employer
from complying with any requirement of national security clearance regulations,
nor prohibit the employer "from seeking, ascertaining, considering, or using
information concerning criminal convictions of applicants or existing employees."
(Emphasis added). Gregory v. Litton Systems, Inc., 316 F. Supp. 401 (1970).
The significance of this decision to our immediate problem is obvious.
196
It is worth noting, also, that Mr. Justice Douglas, dissenting in Tarver v. Smith,
a case not directly related to our problem, in which the Supreme Court denied
certiorari on Maj^ 24, 1971, said, in part, that "A file may show that an individual
was arrested. But will it show that the arrest was unconstitutional because it
was solely for purposes of investigation? Or that the charges were dropped? Or
that a jury acquitted him?" These remarks obviously foreshadow future questions
on the use of a criminal identification record that is incomplete for want of final
dispositions shown.
Questions similar to those raised in Gregory and Tarver, above, were also brought
out in Menard v. Mitchell, 430 F 2d 486 (1970), a Federal appellate decision
which remanded the plaintiff's demand for total expungement of an allegedly
inaccurate identification record back to the trial court for full development of
the facts.
No further argument is necessary to prove that law enforcement is now faced
with a new problem of serious dimensions. It extends to all lawful uses of the
criminal identification record, not to employment situations only. If the FBI, as
the custodian of these records, should be required to expunge all arrest notations
for which dispositions are available but not reported, every element of the criminal
justice system will be handicapped, deprived of infcjrmation pertinent to the
protection of society. The absence of pertinent arrest data which could have been
shown, had only the final disposition been reported, will handicap the investi-
gating officer, the prosecutor and, where conviction is had, the sentencing judge
and the prison and parole authorities.
There is an answer to this problem, one answer and one only. Report the final
disposition in each case at whatever level it occurs — police, prosecutor, or court.
Each and every contributing agency should gear its operations as necessary to
this end. The public interest in safety from criminal attack demands it, as well
as our own interest, and the interests of other elements in the criminal justice
sj'stem, in performing professionally and efficiently toward that same objective.
I ask your complete and continuing cooperation in this mutual effort for the
public good. Specifically, I ask that you expend extra effort to obtain disposition
data and that, where necessary, you devise new ways of insuring that this essential
information is collected and made available to complete the identification records
at both state and national levels.
Very truly yours,
John Edgar Hoover, Director.
U.S. Department of Justice,
Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Washington, B.C., November 21, 1968.
Letter to All Fingerprint Contributors Re FBI Identification
Services
Dear Sir: Upon receipt of the final disposition of an arrest previously reported
to the Identification Division by means of a fingerprint card, it is necessary to
associate the disposition with the correct arrest record. In instances where the
local arrest number or FBI number is not furnished, every effort has been made
in the past to correctly identify the incoming disposition by conducting searches
in our name files using available data on the disposition form such as name of
subject, fingerprint classification, date and description of charge and name of
contributor. Because of the tremendous work load in the Division, it is no longer
feasible to conduct extensive searches in our name files in an effort to identify
dispositions without identifying numbers. Accordingl}^ effective January 1, 1969,
dispositions received without a local arrest number and fingerprint classification or
an FBI number, will not be processed and will be returned to the contributing
agency.
One of the streamlining procedures employed in the Division is the preparation
of certain index cards for our name files by copying a portion of the fingerprint
card with appropriate reproduction equipment. It is, therefore, imperative that the
name of the subject be typed or plainly printed and not written in longhand on
the fingerprint card.
Your full cooperation in the above matters would be very much appreciated.
Very truly yours,
John Edgar Hoover, Director.
197
U.S. Department of Justice,
Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Washington, D.C., September 2S, 1966.
Letter to All Fingerprint Contributors Re Identification
Records
Dear Sir: The value of reporting to our Identification Division the disposition
of an arrest has been discussed in prior letters to all fingerprint contributors.
By letter dated April 2, 1962, the cooperation of all contributors was sohcited in
reporting only final and not interim dispositions such as "held for grand jury,"
"pending," etc.
Since the final disposition of an arrest is a most important part of an identifi-
cation record and serves to complete the history of the offense in the minds of
all who later review the record, your cooperation in furnishing final dispositions
is again being requested. Report such dispo-iitloas, if known, on each fingerprint
card submitted. If unknown when fingerprint card mailed, withhold submission
of disposition until case resolved and reply to fingerprint card has been received
and then use our disposition form R-84 whenever possible.
If our reply bears an FBI number, this number should be included on the
disposition sheet. In the absence of an FBI number, as in the case where no prior
record was located and you received our form 1-A, make certain to include on
disposition sheet the name exactly as it appeared on the fingerprint card, finger-
print classification, and your arrest number. In instances of this type a number of
contributors are returning form 1-A instead of submitting the fingerprint classifi-
cation and arrest number. This greatly facilitates identifying the record in our
files and I would like to encourage all contributors to follow this practice whenever
possible.
Very truly yours,
John Edgar Hoover, Director.
U.S. Department of Justice,
Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Washington, D.C., April 2, 1962.
Letter to All Fingerprint Contributors Re Duplicate Fingerprint Sub-
missions Arrest Disposition Data
Dear Sir: Our Identification Division has experienced a ten per cent rise in
fingerprint receipts thus far this fiscal year. Adoption of streamlining measures by
the FBI plus strict adherence to uniform procedures by all participating agencies
are the only two practical ways of combatting this increased work load.
We certainly wish to express our appreciation to the many agencies which co-
operated so willingly in curtailing duplicate fingerprint submissions in response to
our letter of March 28, 1961. Substantial advances have been made in this field
which are most gratifying.
For the benefit of all, I would like to again briefly state our views as regards
multiple fingerprinting. Many jurisdictions require fingerprinting as a mandatory
procedure incidental to an arrest or incarceration. The FBI's program to eliminate
duplicate fingerprint submissions is not intended to conflict with these require-
ments. We are merelj' asking that law enforcement agencies in the same area
work together to insure that only one set of fingerprints for each arrest or incar-
ceration is forwarded for search by our Identification Division.
Multiple fingerprint submissions are unnecessarily expensive since usually the
fingerprint jacket relating to a particular individual is out of file when the second
and possibly the third fingerprint card arrives. To locate the jacket, it then be-
comes a costly and time-consuming task. In some localities the arresting agency,
and in others, the city or county jail have helped by stamping the reverse side of
each fingerprint submission with a notation to send a copy of our reply to one or
more interested agencies, thus eliminating fingerprint submissions by those
agencies. The duplication problem has also been solved by having the first agency
submitting prints request multiple copies of our reply which, in turn, are then dis-
seminated locally as required. We appreciate that procedures will vary in different
areas and while we are always willing to be consulted on unique situations, the
final decision as to what is done rests with the agencies primarilj^ concerned. I
firmly believe that the key to eliminating multiple fingerprint submissions for the
same arrest or incarceration lies in close cooperation and a concerted effort by all.
198
Another sphere in which you can help is to use the standard forms which we
provide free of charge to all agencies utihzing the facihties of our Identification
Division. These forms are listed on the cover page of each Law Enforcement
Bulletin Insert. The use of other than FBI standard forms serves to retard our
processing of identification data.
One form in particular which we feel deserves your special consideration is the
Disposition Sheet, Form R-84. We have observed that many arrest dispositions
have been submitted which are not final, such as "held for grand jury," "released
on bond" and "pending." Other dispositions, such as "District Court appeal"
and "issuance of a bench warrant," while technically final as far as the contributor
of prints is concerned, add nothing of value to the FBI record. We consider these
to be interim prosecutive steps and do not post them. Some further action obvi-
ously must be taken in these instances before the case may be considered finally
closed. By continuing to submit such interim rej^orts, man-hours are consumed
by your staflf and ours which could be more productively spent on other work.
Additional problems encountered in connection with some arrest dispositions
are; (1) illegibility, (2) use of colloquial terms not understood in other sections
of the country, (3) use of numerical code citations and incomplete data. If our
identification records are to be meaningful to the thousands of law enforcement
and governmental officials who will be reviewing them for many years to come,
we should insure that disposition data reported will be readily understood in all
parts of the country. With regard to incomplete dispositions, the main oversight
is "period of incarceration." This, of course, is very pertinent to any identification
record. It is realized that in some states the period of incarceration is not fixed
by the court. In such instances dispositions submitted should show the sentence
as "indeterminate."
Thank you for your continued cooperation in these and all other matters
designed to improve our fingerprint identification services.
Very truly yours,
John Edgar Hoover, Director.
Senator Burdick. Do you have any policy in regard to releasing
this information to credit bureaus?
Mr. Gray. We do not release it.
Senator Burdick. You do not?
Mr. Gray. The FBI does not; no, sir.
Senator Burdick. If it showed up in their report it is an assumption
that it came from a police station?
Air. Gray. Yes, and if we know about it — it could be that the police
station, the police agency, would be subject to our o^^^l sanctions — we
would say, "We are not going to service you any longer if you are
going to behave in this manner."
Senator Burdick. So far as your office is concerned you release this
information only to law enforcement agencies?
Mr. Gray. Only to a contributor, yes.
Senator Burdick. That is all.
Senator Kennedy. Mr. Gray, some of the areas which I will touch
on have been touched on by other members of the committee but, with
your indulgence and patience, we ^nll review some of these areas. I
am sure the fact that you have thought about them and responded to
them perhaps even make the responses easier for you.
As m3^ colleagues have pointed out, there has been some question
about the politicization of the FBI, and Senator Bayh and others
have queried you about different statements and speeches and the
appropriateness of such speeches, and I think one of the speeches,
which may have been included in the record, which I imagine perhaps
sets out in as great detail as any your commitment toward the
administration, was the one that you gave on the 25th of Jul}" 1969,
199
when you were tlie Executive Assistant to the Secretary of HEW, to
the appointees of the Department. Do you remember that speech at
all?
Mr. Gray. Yes, I do, I wTote every word of it.
Senator Kennedy. Then I believe a national magazine took certain
quotations of that speech and, at a later time, you indicated that the
quotes had been taken out of context.
Mr. Gray. That is right.
Senator Kennedy. And then you issued
Mr. Gray. I prepared a memorandum.
Senator Kennedy. You prepared a memorandum, and in that
memorandum you quoted at some length the preceding paragraphs. I
believe I have the copy of that memorandum here, and I will read
those earlier paragraphs, and if for some reason or another it does not
follow — I see you have the copy of the speech.
Mr. Gray. Yes; I do, Senator.
Senator Kennedy. Now, you indicated in a press release that the
quotes had been taken out of context. If the Time article and your
memorandum have not been included in the record, we wdll include
that as part of the record:
Mr. Gray. All right. Senator.
(The documents referred to follow:)
Address by L. Patrick Gray III, Executive Assistant to the Secretary,
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, to all Appointees in
THE Department at the Deputy Assistant Secretary Level and Below,
July 2.5, 1969
I am going to talk to you about .some lessons learned in the first six (6) months.
The approach will be practical, but threaded throughout will be the lofty ideals
and the great concerns we have as we join together in HEW to serve the President,
the Secretary and the people of our Nation.
At the risk of being tagged here and now as an over 30, "turned off" reactionary,
let me emphasize to you the importance of the concept that we are here to serve,
not to be served — that we are here to serve, not to enhance our own perfectly
normal, human selfish interests. This may be out of tune with some of the thinking
surrounding us today.
Each of us is possessed of our own desires, ambitions and goals. This is normal.
This is commendable. At the same time, when we embark upon a career in the
service of our government, whether that career is to be short term or long term,
we must be quite willing to subjugate our own personal goals to a deep, personal
commitment to serve our President, our Secretary, and our Nation.
This commitment must be our homing beacon throughout our career in the
service of our government.
Each one of us is here in HEW because Richard Nixon was elected to the high
oflfice of President of the United States. Further we are here because Secretary
Finch has seen fit to place trust and confidence in us and to approve our selection
to fill a position in HEW.
In short we owe our positions to the capability of the President to come off
the mat, so to speak, and drive through hard, vigorous years of campaigning to
win the nomination of the Republican Party, and then go on to win the Presidency
of the United States with the valiant help of hundreds of thousands of dedicated,
hardworking supporters, campaign workers, and contributors.
So also are we here because Secretary Finch has seen fit to ask us to serve with
him and to help him move this Department forward as he and the President seek
the solutions to the people problems which, if not solved, might well rupture and
destroy the society which the people of our Nation have created.
Obviously, we are a chosen few, an elite group — make no mistake about it —
there are thousands of Republicans who are knocking at the door and who would
be pleased to be in our positions.
200
Appreciate this hard fact of life. Appreciate the fact that every single member
of the opposite political party is working hard day and night to ensure that the
President of the United States is hampered and harassed in carrying out his
programs and that the President of the United States is not reelected to serve a
second term.
This is a real hard political fact of life. This is in keeping with the nature of our
political system. Without such a system, one party government could produce a
totalitarian state. We accept this fctct of life; so does the opposing party. Ac-
cordingly, do not retch or quiver when we insist that the preponderant majority
■of our colleagues — political appointees — be members of our own party.
Again it is plainly obvious that we must be dedicated and devoted "to the con-
cept that our Republican President will be a great President, that his programs
will be successful, and that he will be reelected to a second term.
Above all other qualities of character that we hold near and dear, we must have
deep, abiding, sincere loyalty to our President and to our Secretary.
Earlier I placed great emphasis on service. Now I want to drive "home hard the
emphasis on loyalty. I do not speak of blind, automatic loyalty. I speak of a sincere,
an inteUigent, a freely made decision to join President Nixoii and Secretary Finch
because we beheve in them, trust them, understand the goals and objectives they
hold, and desire to support them with the deepest sense of dedication and total
commitment.
Should there be anyone of you here present today who cannot make this com-
mitment, you must — in order to maintain your own dignity, self-respect, and in-
tegrity— examine deeply your own hearts and minds and reach a decision — to
serve or not to serve.
Do not today understand me to be saying that each of you is to consider your-
self as & fanatic, blind, unreasoning, partisan Eepublican of the brand often carica-
tured by Herb Block and others who are determined that an enlightened, human,
understanding Republican President shall not succeed.
No. I am saying that you are here because you have made a profound commit-
ment to support with total dedication the President of the United States; that
you have made this commitment inteUigently because you wish to join with him
\n bringing this country together again; that you have made this commitment
intelligently because you wish to join with Secretary Finch in assisting him to
perform the tough tasks which lie ahead — tasks which must be performed well in
order that the President may accomplish his objective.
Our Nation has elected a Republican President. We have a Republican Ad-
ministration. We have Republican approaches to the problems of our people. We
have the knowledge of the President's goals. We have the common sense to know
the desires and objectives of the President and the Secretary — we must have the
Joyalty, the courage, and the commitment to do their will — not our will. This
means, plainly and simply, that we get on the track with the President and the
;Secretary and that we stay there and track with them.
You may say, "I am not political" — "I am an Independent" — "I do not care
what party is involved, I vote for the man" — "Politics is a dirty business," and
*o on. Frorr the vantage point of my ancient age, let me assure you that no Ameri-
can can afford to ignore politics, to ignore the machinery of government, to adopt
an attitude of "Let George do it." This attitude is guaranteed to ensure the de-
mise of the two party S3'stem — our form of democracy. No American can af-
ford to avoid involvement, particularly in today's world, when the thing to do
is to become involved, to participate, to take a position.
Now let's go on to other lessons learned:
Loyalty includes also a dedication to your immediate superior and to those who
work with you in our cause, on our team.
Loyalty includes an avoidance of criticism of our leaders and of our colleagues.
Criticism which is destructive in nature is cancerous — it will destroy us and our
entire team. Snide remarks and facetious comments lightly made often come back
to haunt us. Too often have I heard this form of banter engaged in innocently. Too
often have I seen the results published in newspapers or made the subject of
remarks by the boob-tube word mashers.
Loyalty includes having the common sense and decency to deal with others in
a. manner calculated to bring credit to the President and the Secretary. We are
the President's people — we are the Secretary's team — -and when we speak, we
speak fnr the Secretary but we do not speak as the Secretary. We do not wear the
Secretary's mantle. Therefore, while we speak from strength, we do not speak with
arrogance. Courtesy is the key. Our errors here become the Secretary's errors and
place him in a very delicate position. Instead of strengthening him, we weaken him
201
Loyalty includes the touching of all required bases as we set out on our daily
rounds to carry out the will of the Secretary. We deal directly and candidly. We
deal with those who ought to linow and who have a responsibility to the Secretary,
too. In short, we do not "end around."
I believe that I may have placed the concept of service and loyalty in the
proper perspective and I want to go now to a few more pitfalls and prattfalls that
can harm us, the President, and the Secretary.
Not one problem that we handle in HEW is simple. This is the lot of a Depart-
ment responsible for the problems of people at the national level. Accordingly,
not one task assigned to you is of a nature such that you can give it the so-called
"light touch." You have to shred the problem; look at it from every angle; learn
to work in depth; learn to dig hard; learn to turn in a work product that is as
thorough, as logical, and as clear as you can make it. You should be concerned
with the overview, the big policy, the grand decision. But you also are in a training
period, a development period — we all are. Do the tasks assigned well and you will
find that your personal job satisfaction is enhanced and your responsibilities are
increased. Above all do not seek out only the so-called "glamour work;" put your
shoulder to the wheel and be eager to tackle the "nitty gritty" chores, tot>.
The President and the Secretary appreciate another hard fact of life. Simply
stated it is that intelligent members of an elite group — our team-^will generate
a wide diversity of views and rather strong opinions regarding the highly charged
issues facing our Nation today. This is great and we do not want to stifle the
minds and stagnate the thought processes of the members of our team. At the
same time, and although we believe in and foster the thorough airing of our views
and opinions within our own family, we must present a united front in support of
a decision once made by the President or the Secretary. Our support must be
total and absolute.
In conversations with others, we do not refer to RHF as " Bob." He is the Secre-
tary to all within the Department and to outsiders. Be extremelj' careful at all
times to maintain the dignity of his office, but do it with warmth and humility —
not with arrogance. We have enough problems in HEW now without creating
more by being inept or overbearing.
Even though each of us is close to the Secretary, resist at all times the tempta-
tion to enhance our own image by "puffing," or b,y our actions demonstrating how
close we are to the Secretary'. We would not be here if we were not close to the
Secretary and those with whom we will come in contact know this political fact
of life. You will demean yourself and the Office of the Secretary by taking "name
dropping" advantage of your position.
Lobbjnsts — you will come in contact with them; they have a legitimate reason
for existing. Be a courteous listener, but a most careful talker. Make no com-
mitments whatsoever in the name of the Secretary. Moreover, do not even talk
in such a manner to "lead on" a lobbyist — j'ou trap yourself in a very difficult
situation and you can hurt RHF badly by this sort of conduct. Again, be a
courteous and attentive listener, but a most careful talker.
Telephone Conversations— The telephone is obviously an invaluable com-
munication tool, but do not say in a telephone conversation that which you would
not care to see in print the next day. Once again, the concept is that of tact,
courtesy, patience, understanding, care and concern — but no commitments in
the name of the Secretary, and no "puffing."
Mail — The principles I have spoken of thus far apply as well to all mail leaving
the Department. When preparing correspondence for the Secretary's signature,
or when reviewing it, never treat it lightly, no matter how simple the subject.
The reasons are obvious — every letter portrays the image of our office and of the
Department; further every letter reflects the substance of our positions and poli-
cies.
Security — Recent examples should be sufficient to impress upon each of us the
critical importance of the general security of our office and our official, as well as
unofficial, papers. Every Department of government is loaded with prying eyes — •
eyes that are prying for one reason or another. Be assured that none of this prying
has as its objective the enhancement of the Nixon Administration or the enhance-
ment of our Department. We deal with critical issues of great importance to manv
diverse groups in our land. Be mindful of security at all times; above all leave a
clean desk when you leave for the day and be certain that critical papers are
under lock.
202
The effective fvinctioning of any group is related to the degree of cohesiveness
and common purpose which has been established and accepted throughout the
grf)up.
Let's look to see if we have the ingredients in our make-up to generate that sense
ofrcohesiveness and common purpose.
Why are we here?
A. Because we believe in President Nixon and Secretary Finch.
B. Because we are dedicated to them and their work.
C Because we ask only to serve; not to be served.
D. Because we have no greed for personal aggrandizement.
E. Because we feel a deep sense of personal pride, honor and humility in
being asked to serve.
How do we operate?
First, we will operate as the Secretary desires us to operate.
Second, our mission is to do just as much for the Secretary as we can to
remove from his shoulders vninecessary burdens.
Third, we do our work in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the
Secretary.
Fourth, we are staff assistants to the Secretary — not decision makers or
policy makers, even though we may well iiave a strong input to him prior
to the moment decisions are made and policies established. Once made, we
support them to the hilt!
Fifth, we operate in such a way as to reflect credit upon the Secretary for
choosing us to occupy the important positions to which he has appointed each
of us.
Sixth, we do niit throw around the weight of the Secretary's Office. We are
•courteous and considerate in all of our dealings with the people in the Depart-
ment, yet we are not to be hoodwinked or misled into presenting slanted
information to the Secretary.
I believe that each of us can agree that we have the ingredients required to
function effectively in behalf of the President and the Secretary.
Our objective — -to assist to the fullest extent, the Secretary in his objective to
make this the best Department in the Nixon Administration; to establish this
Department as a Department on the move, a Department composed of com-
passionate and understanding people who are determined to generate and manage
plans and programs designed to enrich the lives of all Americans; to make this
Department so attractive and so meaningful in its work, that menibers of the
civil service, and others not now in government, will be eager to join HEW and
assist the Secretary to achieve his objectives. Imaginative, creative, dedicated,
and competent people form the heart and fiesh, the bone, sinew and muscle of any
organization whether it be the corner grocery store, or a major Department of
the Government of the United States. We must have them and we must work
with them in such a manner that they can realize their full potential in the best
interests of the people of the United States.
[Time maera'/inp, .Tnnimrv In, 1973]
The Administration
"tattletale gray"
The Federal Bureau of Investigation likes to present itself to the i)ubiic as a
well-oiled crime-fighting monolith that functions without so much as a ping. If
that image was never entirely accurate in J. Edgar Hoover's day, it is even less
true now under the bureau's acting director, L. Patrick Gray, .56. More and niore
the bureau's internecine troubles have been surfacing — mainly because Gray's
own agents are privately protesting his policies. The most recent and glaring
example: Gray's reshuffling of nine veteran members of his headquarters staff,
which, among Other things, wiped out the bureau's longstanding Crime Records
Division. For years it was an elite outfit that served Hoover as a liaison with
Congress and the press.
Gray insists that the men are being given jobs that are every bit as important
as their previous ones, and that several of the assignments are promotions. How-
ever, at least two of the men chose to resign. Gray claims that he is getting rid
of "Hooverites," yet some agents accuse him of retaining the most hated of
Hoover's hard-line policies.
203
Among these policies are the harsh discipUnary measures that agents consider
mijust; the persistence of power cUques that virtually run the bureau; the i^erpet-
uation of Hoover's notorious "blacklist" of people to be shunned, socially and
otherwise, by FBI agents; the maintenance of so-called penal coloniesj field
offices to which agents in disfavor are banished; and leaking FBI information to
embarrass officials Gray considers to be his enemies.
Still, nothing has damaged morale at the bureau as much as one of Gray's
own innovations — the publicizing of his disciplinary actions. He terms it "airing
the linen," but around the Vjureau these days the practice has earned him the
nickname "Tattletale Gray."
Intelligence. — Most of those sound like basic housecleaning problems that in-
evitably crop up when an organization of the size and complexity of the FBI
loses the only chief it ever had. But the nagging problem that will not go awa.y is
Gray's tie with President Nixon. Whatever Hoover's flaws, no one coiild accuse him
of playing partisan politics; he intended the bureau to be above such doings and
made that ideal stick during his reign.
Gray left the Navy in 1960 to join the staff of Vice President Richard Nixon,
and served on the Nixon campaign teams in 1960 and 1968. There have been dis-
turbing indications that Gray is not the wholly apolitical administrator that he
now claims to be. Back in 1969, when he joined the Health, Education and Welfare
Department, he told a meeting of Administration appointee.s, "Do not retch or
quiver when we insist that the preponderant majority ;of our colleagues — po-
litical appointees — be members of our own y)arty." He adried: "Loyalty includes
an avoidance of criticism of our leaders and of our colleagues. Criticism which is de-
structive in nature is cancerous — it will destroy us and our entire team."
Gray coached Richard Kleindienst in his testimony before the Senate Judiciary
Committee during the I.T.T. controversy, and last summer, at the request of the
White House, made campaign speeches for Nixon. He began his talks in Ohio
after a presidential aide told him that the state was "crucially vital to our hopes in
November." In September he ordered his agents to collect political intelligence for
Nixon, and within the bureau, defended his actions by simply shrugging:
"Wouldn't you do that for the President?" Although the request came from a
member of Nixon's staff, the White House said later that it was improper to give
the assignment to the FBI.
An even pricklier matter is the ongoing Watergate bugging case and the White
House anger about news leaks. Several agents complained that Gray's spot in-
spection of the Washington field office in search of the leaks was actually slowing
down the W"atergate investigation. Recently Gray transferred three FBI officials
who pushed the Watergate investigation into the White House and presidential
re-election committee. Two accepted the transfers. The third quit the bureau.
Said one Washington agent: "I've been around here a long time, and no one has
ever questioned my integrity. Now, because the White House is upset, my in-
tegrity has been challenged tv/ice in one week."
Gray did relax Hoover's mandatory weight limits — then turned around and
disciplined an agent for disobeying an order to lose weight. On the other hand,
he refused to censure an agent whose son had been involved in a drug scandal or to
discipline an agent for delinquent reports on some 72 cases to which he was
assigned. Said Gray sensibly: "I might have some overdue reports if I was han-
dling 72 cases." He has also reduced some padded conviction statistics Hoover
used to cite to make the bureau look good — although a drunken Indian arrested
on a reservation may still end up in the FBI's crime figures.
Thus far, Nixon himself has had nothing but praise for Gray, but it remains to
be seen whether the President will permanently give Gray the coveted chair.
January 10, 1973.
[memorandum]
Subject: Time Magazine Article of January 15, 1973 Entitled "Tattle-
tale Gray
The above article includes a number of false, inaccurate, or misleading state-
ments. I will deal with each one of them individually below.
1. "Gray's own agents are privately protesting his policies"
On December 19, 1972, I asked Acting Associate Director W. Mark Felt to
conduct a survey of morale among the agents throughout the Bureau. Mr. Felt
204
and Assistant Director Leonard W. Walters contacted the heads of 21 field
offices. The results were that morale among the agents is at least as high as
ever or at most higher than ever in the history of the Bureau. Some sample
comments follow:
"Outstanding, never higher; exuberance expressed with frequency bv Agents
at innovative changes; deep impression of Mr. Gray as a leader upon "his visit;
Agents working freely on weekend urgent assignments with no grumbling; 99%
of Agents highly disposed toward innovative changes made by Mr. Gray; in-
dividual production and accomplishments high which is proof of the pudding;
Agents giving of their own time with gusto; great teamwork among Agents
demonstrating high morale; Agents and clerical personnel alike glowing with
comments concerning impression of Mr. Gray and his leadership; never observed
morale higher among Agents; morale 100%; high impression of Mr. Gray's
acceptance of responsibility for a correct law enforcement decision in aborting
skyjacked flight at Orlando, Florida (same expression by local police officials) ;
morale never higher not only among rank and file Agent personnel but super-
visory staff as well; unanimous support of innovative changes of Mr. Gray;
terrific impact of Mr. Gray's visit and changes wrought; best morale ever ob-
served in any office; high morale throughout field."
2. "Gray's reshuffling of nine veteran members of his headquarters staff . . . wiped
out the bureau's longstanding Crime Records Division"
On December 1, 1972, I announced that I had transferred to mv immediate
office responsibility for relations with Congress and the news media. In addition,
I announced that I had requested a management survey of the remaining func-
tions of the Crime Research Division. That survey was completed on December 6
and recommended transferring all remaining functions of the Division to several
other divisions. This was approved by me on December 12 and effected by Decem-
ber 19. Therefore, the Crime Research Division had been abolished by that date
and its i^ersonnel were reporting to their new supervisors in other divisions.
The nine transfers referred to were issued December 29, 1972, and could not
have wiped out a then non-existent Crime Research Division. Eight of them
involved members of the FBI who had been assigned previously to the Crime
Research Division but were now functioning in their new divisions. The ninth
involved an official of the General Investigative Division. Listed below are the
transfers, none of which involved any change in rank or salary, but all of which
involved substantially greater responsibility and less supervision in the perform-
ance of the new duties.
Name Old assignment New assignment Disposition
James F Bland Director's office, SAC, Albany Retired
Harold P. Leinbaugh.. do ASAC, Detroit- Do
Donald G. Manning Training division ASAC, Pliiladelphia Do
George W. Gunn do ASAC, San Francisco.-. Pending
William H. Stapleton.- Administrative division ASAC, Chicago Retired.
George T. Quinn Training division Inspector . Accepted.
Gordon E. Mahnfeldt Associate director's office .__ ...do Do
Bernard M. Suttler Training division (Washington, D.C.)... National Academy "(QuanTico)."..".." Retired!
Henry A. Schutz, Jr General investigative division Inspector Accepted.
3. "Gray claims that he is getting rid of 'Hooverites' "
I have never stated or claimed that I am getting rid of Hooverites. In fact, I
have specifically stated and been quoted in the press to the contrary. (Washington
Star-News, January 3, 1973, p. A 17)
4. Gray has retained the most hated of Hoover's hardline policies :
(a) "harsh disciplinary measures"
I have disciplined members of the FBI when appropriate and only to a
degree commensurate with the severity of their misconduct.
(b) "the persistence of power cliques that virtually run the bureau"
All authority in the Bureau reposes in the Acting Director. Certain author-
ity is delegated by him to the Associate Director, the Assistant Directors in
charge of the various headquarters divisions, and the Special Agents in Charge
of the field divisions. Perhaps it may be true that "power cliques" may have
controlled the selection of personnel for advancement in the FBI in the past,
• but this is no longer true. Selection Boards composed of Assistant Directors
205
and SACs now review records of FBI personnel and recommend to the Acting
Director those best quaUfied for advancement.
(c) "the perpetuation of Hoover's notorious 'blacli-list' of people to be shunned,
socially and otherwise by FBI agents"
I know of no such list or of the perpetuation of it.
(d) "the maintenance of so-called penal colonies, field offices to which agents in
disfavor are banished"
I have never heard of nor used the term "penal colonies" with reference to
the field offices. When circumstances warranted, I have transferred Special
Agents in Charge from larger to smaller field offices to reduce their supervisory
responsibilities and thus given them a chance to improve their own cap-
abilities.
(e) "leaking FBI information to embarrass officials Gray considers to be his
enemies"
I have not and do not leak information to the press. In all my contacts
with the news media, I have done all I could to deal openly and fairly with
them at all times.
(/) publicizing of disciplinary actions — "He terms it 'airing the linen' "
I have never used the term "airing the linen" with refei'ence to any dis-
ciplinary action. Furthermore, I have never publicized a disciplinary action.
I did give a full and complete statement on announcing the retirement of
Wesley G. Grapp, the former SAC in Los Angeles. However, this was done
solely to protect the Bureau and give all the facts to counter false reports and
rumors that this was the first case of scandal or corruption in the Bureau.
5. "Gray . . . served on the Nixon campaign teams in 1960 and 1968."
I served in the Office of the then Vice President Nixon from about July 1, 1960
to January 1961. I did not serve in the campaign organization of the President
during 1968.
6. Gray "told a meeting of Administration appointees, 'Do not retch or quiver
when we insist that the preponderant majority of our colleagues — political
appointees — -be members of our own party." He added: "Loyalty includes an
avoidance of criticism of (jur leaders and of our colleagues. Criticism which
is destructive in nature is cancerous — it will destroy us and our entire
team."
These quotations are extracted from a talk I gave to all political appointees at
HEW on July 25, 1969. They are, of course, taken out of context. The full context
is as follows: "Appreciate the fact that every single member of the opposite
political party is working hard day and night to ensure that the President of the
L^nited States is hampered and harassed in carrying out his programs and that
the President of the United States is not re-elected to serve a second term."
"This is a real hard political fact of life This is in keeping with the nature of ov.r
political system. Without such a system, one party government co ild j roduce a
totalitarian state. We accept this fact of life; so does the opposing party. Accord-
ingly, do not retch or quiver when we insist that the preponderant majori.y of our
colleagues — political appointees — be members of our own party."
Later in the same speech, !_ stated:
"Loyalty includes also a dedication to your immediate superior and to those who
work with you in our cause, on our team."
''Loyalty includes an avoidance of criticism of our leaders and of our colleagues.
Criticism which is destructive in nature is cancerous — it will destroy us and our
entire team. . . ."
"The President and the Secretary appreciate another hard fact of life. Simply
stated it is that intelligent members of an elite group — our team — will generate a
wide diversity of views and rather strong opinions regarding the highly charged
issues facing our Nation today. This is great and we do not want to stifle the
minds and stagnate the thought processes of the members of our team. At the
same time, and although we believe in and foster the thorough airing of our views
and opinions within our own family, we must present a united front in support
of a decision once made by the President or the Secretary. Our support must be
total and absolute."
7. "Gray coached Richard Kleindienst in his testimony before the Senate Judici-
ary Committee during the I.T.T. controversy"
As Deputy Attorney General-Designate, I assisted the Attorney General in
preparing for his confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
91-331 — 73 14
206
~No one coached Mr. Kleindienst to my knowledge. Also in that capacity, I later
acted upon official requests and inquiries from the Chairman of the Committee.
8. "Gray . . . made campaign speeches for Nixon. He began his talks in Ohio
after a presidential aide told him that the state was 'crucially vital to our
hopes in November' "
I gave no campaign speeches whatever for the President. I spoke before the
City Club of Cleveland, Ohio on August 11, 1972, on the subject of "Freedom
Under Law", at the invitation of the City Club. I made no mention whatever of
the President, his opponent, or the political canqjaign. The speech dealt mainly
with the problem of crime in a constitutional democracy. That was the only speech
I have given in the State of Ohio since being named Acting Director. It is true
that I did receive a White House memorandum regarding this speech. A copj- is
attached.
9. "In September, he ordered his agents to collect political intelligence for Nixon,
and, within the bureau, defended his actions by simplj' shrugging: 'Wouldn't
you do that for the President?' "
I have never made any such statement, within the Bureau or anywhere else.
I have made no public comment whatever on this matter.
Under date of September 1, 1972, Geoff Shepard of the White House staff,
prepared a memorandum for the l^eputy Attorney General on the subject of
"Information for ('ampaign Trips: Events and Issues." This requested two
categories of information: (1) identification of the substantive issue problem areas
in the criminal justice field; and (2) a list of events relating to the criminal justice
area that would be good for John Ehrlichman to ct)nsider doing. The memoiandum
indicated an interest in this information in l.o specified states. It requested the
information b}' close of business on September 7, 1972.
Under date of September 8, 1972, the office of the Deputy Attorney General
forwarded to the off.ce of the Acting Director a copy of the White House memo-
randum requesting an evaluation of the questions. This noted that the White
House deadline already was passed and asked for a response as quickly as possible.
The memorandum from the office of the Deputy Attorney General was processed
by a member of his staff, not by the Depiity Attorney General.
The memorandum from the office of the Deputy Attorney General was received
in the office of the Acting Director of the FBI at 10:32 a.m. cm September 8, 1972.
Mr. Gray was out of Washington at the time and the matter was handled bv
his Executive Assistant, David D. Kinley. He forwarded it to the Assistant
Director t)f the Crime Records Division, Thomas E. Bishop. Mr. Bishop discussed
the matter with Acting Associate Director W. Mark Felt, and thereafter Mr.
Bishop had one of his subordinates prepare a teletype to 21 FBI Field Offices
which he approved to be sent late on September 8, 1972, setting a deadline of
the opening of business on September 11, 1972. This teletype set out virtually
verbatim the text of the request in the White House memorandum of Septem-
ber 1, 1972.
The material received from the Field Offices in response to the teletj-pe was
summarized into a memorandum on September 11, 1972, which was approved
by Messrs. Bishop, Felt and Kinley and was then delivered to the office of the
Deputy Attorney General late on the same date. The information supplied by
the Field Offices required no investigation to obtain it — it was information readily
available within the Field Offices pertaining to forthcoming meetings and con-
ferences on matters of similar interest in law enforcement and criminal justice
fields.
Mr. Gray was out of Washington during the entire period of September 8 to 11,
1972, returning to the city after 7:00 p.m. on September 11, 1972. His first knowl-
edge of this matter was on the late afternoon of September 12, 1972.
Personnel involved in the handling of this project have stated they did not
question the propriety m complying with the request since it dealt with informa-
tion of a broad nature concerning police and the criminal justice system, since it
had been requested by the White House, and since the request had come through
^he offices of the Deputj' Attorney General and the Acting Director.
207
10. "Gray's spot inspection of the Washington field office in search of the leaks
was actually slowing down the Watergate investigation."
I have ordered no spot inspection of the Washington Field Office to determine
the source of leaks in the Watergate case. I have heard no complaints whatever
that tlie Watergate investigation was slowed down b\- me.
11. "R.ecently, Gray transferred three FBI officials who pushed the Watergate
investigation into the White House and presidential re-election committee.
Two accepted the transfers. The third quit the bureau."
I have transferred two members of the FBI involved in the Watergate investi-
gation. On September 29, 1972, at his own request, I re-assigned the Assistant
Director in charge of the General Investigative Division to his former position as
Special Agent in Charge of the San Francisco Field Office. Also, on September 29,
1972, I re-assigned the Special Agent in Charge of the Washington Field Office to
head the St. Louis Field Office because he allowed certain false and misleading
information to be reported to FBI headquarters concerning an incident during an
anti-war demonstration in May 1972.
The third individual was never offered a transfer. He headed the Accounting
and Fraud Section of the General Investigative Division. I had no intention of
reassigning him because of his demonstrated expertise in this held. However, on
December 6, 1972, he resigned voluntarily to take an investigative position v/ith
HUD.
12. "[Gray] refused to censure an agent whose son had been involved in a drug
scandal"
The case referred to must V^e that of Special Agent Francis E. Burke. On
March 14, 1972, he was censured, placed on probation, and reassigned from the
Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, Re-^ident Agency to the Milwaukee office. This action was
taken by Mr. Hoover becatise Burke failed to report to the Bureau allegations
jiiade to the Coeur d'Alene Police Department that his son was dealing with
narcotics and stolen goods. Investigation by the local Police Department pro-
duced no concrete evidence in support of these allegations. On May 25, 1972,
Burke wrote me requesting reassignment from Milwaukee to Coeur d'Alene
because of the poor health of his wife and the fact that his mother was widowed.
On June 15, 1972, I transferred Burke to the Butte office. At the time, I com-
mented to my associates at the Bureati as follows: "(1) Are we surmising that his
al^ility to function effectively has been impaired, or do we have concrete evidence
that it has been impaired? I find none. (2) No father is always certain from one
day to the next of the behavior of his children. Is it a positive requirement that
every SA be able to maintain discipline in his home and that he do so? Some
fathers can, some cannot, and often due to no fault of their own, particularly in
today's clime. (3) Agents have had family problems, and I am sure will have them
in the ftiture. Transfer away from family does not help solve such problems.
(4) I am analyzing tiiis case with the interests of the FBI paramount, but with
consideration for the human factijrs. (5) vSA Burke has been rated Excellent since
1961. (6) Order SA Burke to Butte, the Headquarters city, unless we have to set
up a chain of transfers to fill a vacancy in Milwaukee and thus penalize other
Agents. Let me know. (7) These transfers for reasons foiuid here are abominable."
13. Gray refused "to discipline an agent for delinquent reports on some 72 cases
to which he was assigned. Said Gray sensibly: 'I might have some overdue
reports if I was handling 72 cases' "
I do not recall ever making such a statement. Officials responsible for these
matters cannot recall such a statement, nor do they have any idea what case is
being referred to.
Attachment.
The White House,
Washington, June 13, 1972.
Memorandimi for: Hon. L. Patrick Gray.
From: Patrick E. O'Donnell.
Subject: Freedom's Fortim — The City Club, Cleveland, Ohio.
The City Club has asked our assistance in attempting to secure j'our participa-
tion as a key speaker sometime during the period following July 1, 1972. Since its
founding fifty years ago, Cleveland's City Club has been a focus and one of the
bulwarks of freedom of speech in one of America's great cities. The Club maintains
a deep interest in affairs of government, economics and politics, both national
208
and international. It offers a prestigious meeting place for the open discussion of
important social, political and economic problems.
They meet every Friday at noon and have a 300 maximum attendance. However,
if you were inclined, they could "go public" and provide almost a crowd of any
size you might desire. Both Secretaries Hodgson and Shultz have recently ad-
dressed the Club and just recently Ambassador Bush delivered a well-received
speech.
With Ohio being cruciaUy vital to our hopes in November, we would hope you will
assign this forum sorne priority in planning your schedule. In the event you are
interested, I have full background material available. Incidentally, Under Secre-
tary of Commerce Jim Lynn is quite familiar with the Club.
Many thanks.
Mr. Gray. It was not a press release, though, Senator, I didn't
make a press release. I wrote a memorandum.
Senator Kennedy. I see.
Mr. Gray. And I gave it to certain — I gave it rather wide distribu-
tion.
Senator Kennedy. Yoiu- memorandum says that the Time quota-
tions "are, of course, taken out of context. The full text is as follows. "
Then your memorandum goes on to say — do you want to read that
yourself or do you want me to?
Mr. Gray. I prefer that you read it, Senator.
Senator Kennedy. I would prefer that you would, but that is all
right.
Mr. Gray. Your voice may be stronger than mine at this moment
and that is why I am
Senator Kennedy. You do very well.
Mr. Gray. No, I have a little trouble with my Sucrets. [Laughter.]
Senator Kennedy. As follows:
Appreciate the fact that every single member of the opposite political part.y is
working hard da,y and night to insure that the President of the United States is
hampered and harassed in carrying out his program and that the President of the
United States is not reelected to serve a second term.
This is a real hard political fact of life. This is in keeping with the nature of our
political sj^stem. Without such a sj^stem one-party government could produce a
totalitarian state. We accept this fact of life, so does the opijosing party. Accord-
ingly, do not retch or quiver when we insist that the preponderant majority of
our colleagues, political appointees, be members of our own party.
Senator Kennedy. Now this is where your memorandum stops
quoting, but the speech itself continues, and I would like to read
briefly since the part I have read preceded the language that was
quoted by Time, and the part that follows the Time quote is not
included in the release:
Again it is plainly obvious that we must be dedicated and devoted to th&
concept that our Republican President will be a great President, that his programs
will be successful, and that he will be reelected to a second term.
Above all other qualities of character that we hold near and dear, we must
have deep, abiding, sincere loyalty to our President and to our Secretar.v.
Earlier I placed great emphasis on service. Now I want to drive home hard the
emphasis on loyalty. I do not speak of blind, automatic loyalty. I speak of a
sincere, an intelligent, a freely made decision to join President Nixon and Secretary
Finch because we believe in them, trust them, luiderstand the goals and objectives
the}' hold, and desire to support them with the deepest sense of dedication and
total commitment.
Should there be any one of yon here present today who cannot make thi.s
roTimitme'^t vou must in order to maintain your own dignity, self-respect ar.d
integrity, examine deeply j'^our own hearts and minds and reach a decision to
sci \ c or not to serve.
209
Do not today understand me to say that each of you is to consider himself as a
fanatic, blind, unreasoning partisan kind of Republican, the brand often cari-
catured by Herblock and others who are determined that an enlightened, human,
understanding Repubhcan President shall not succeed.
No, I am saying you are here because you hav^e made a profound commitment
to support the total dedication of the President of the United States and that
you have made this commitment inteUigently because you wish to join with him in
bringing this country together again and you made this commitment intelligently
because you wished to join with Secretary Finch in assisting him to perform the
tough tasks which lie ahead, tasks which must be performed well in order that the
President may push his objective.
Our nation has elected a Republican President, we have a Republican Ad-
ministration, we have Republican approaches to prol:)lems of our people. We
have the President's goals, we have the common sense to know and acknowledge
the common objectives of the President and Secretary, and we should have the
loyalty, the courage and commitment to do their will — not our will. This means,
plainly and simply, that we get on the track with the President and the Secretary
and that we stay there and track with them.
Now an earlier paragraph, on page 2 of your speech, at the top you
have :
Each one of us is here in HEW because Richard Nixon was elected to the high
office of President of the United States. Further we are here because Secretary
Finch has seen fit to place trust and confidence in us and to approve our selection
to fill a position in HEW.
In short, we owe our positions to the capability of the President to come off the
the mat, so to speak, and drive through hard, vigorous years of campaigning. . . .
The part that "Each one of us here in HEW", if you could change
that to FBI, "because Richard Nixon was elected to the high office of
President of the United States." Is this still your feehng?
Mr. Gray. Certainly not, and I expressed that in my statement to
the committee. Remember this statement, Senator Kennedy, was
made to pohtical appointees at HEW at the Deputy Assistant Secre-
tary level and below. I would invite your attention to the pledges I
made in my statement to the committee and I \\ould also saj^ to you
again, as I said in my statement, that I view my return to the FBI as
a return to the service of my coimtry, as distinguished from my former
pursuit while I was helping Bob Finch make the transition at HEW^.
And I think what might also be very important to insure that we
consider both sides of this is to take a look at page 11 and just the
last lines there:
Imaginative, creative, dedicated, and competent people form the heart and
flesh, the bone, sinew and muscle of any organization whether it be the corner
grocery store or a major department of the Government of the United States. We
must have them and we must work with them in such a manner that they can
realize their full potential in the best interests of the people of the United States.
Senator Kennedy. Then we will just wind up this part of the ques-
tioning, you have on page 1 :
At the same time, when we embark upon a career in the service of our govern-
ment, whether that career is to be short term or long term, we must be quite
willing to subjugate our own personal goals to a deep, personal commitment to
serve our President, our Secretary, and our Nation.
Mr. Gray. That is correct, Senator.
Senator Kennedy. Would you reverse that order now?
Mr. Gray. No, you have got to feel it as I felt it and accept the
situation that existed in HEW. There were many people over there
that I called snow shovelers, who were there for personal aggran-
dizement and I was addressing myself to them. The things I liit hardest
210
were the last two sentences that I read, in the last two paragrai^hs,
because there is no doubt about it — anybody who knew me there
over in HEW knew exactly what kind of a critter I was.
Senator Kennedy. That is what we are going to try to find out.
Mr. Gray. I am sure you are, that is why I am here.
Senator Kennedy. Could you just, before getting into some other
questions, could you tell us the latest on Wounded Knee?
Mr. Gray. Yes, sir, the latest word is that I ordered another
ex])erienced SAC in there to assist the SAC I have now in there,
and we also have information that Senator McGovern and Senator
Abourezk and some of their staff members are going out in U.S. Air
Force aircraft. Right at the time I left FBI headquarters, the last
memorandum handed me was that the situation was stable as of this
moment. But I don't know what it is right now.
Senator Kennedy. The memorandum ought to show I have a staff
member on that plane, too.
Mr. Gray. Yes, it does, I already mentioned the Senators, but you
are correct.
Senator Kennedy, This week's Time magazine contains informa-
tion about alleged wiretaps on newsmen, according to the article^
requested by the White House, authorized by the Justice Department,
installed b}' the FBI. How would you respond to those charges?
Mr. Gray. I would have to say, first, that with regard to the gen-
eral matter of wiretaps
Senator Kennedy. No, just on these charges. How do you respond
specifically, I Avill come on to general \\dretap questions later on. How
do you respond?
Mr. Gray. How do I respond to these charges? When I saw this
particular article and checked the records and indexes of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation, and I am told also that the Department of
Justice checked the records of the Internal Security Division of the
Department of Justice, there is no record of any such business here of
bugging news reporters and White House people.
vSenator Kennedy. Well, is that the full answer?
Mr. Gray. That is my answer, yes, sir, that is my full answer.
Senator Kennedy. Did you talk to anyone about it at the White
House or is it just a matter of your answer is ''I just checked the re-
cord and we didn't find any authorization and we didn't do anything
else."
Mr. Gray. That is my answer, that we checked the records and in-
de.xes of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, yes, sir.
Senator Kennedy. Could you describe that in some greater detail.
These are some rather serious charges.
Mr. Gray. I know they are rather serious charges.
Senator Kennedy. Tell us what you did exactly.
Mr. Gray. I went to the records and checked the records.
Senator Kennedy. What records?
Mr. Gray. The records that we keep on national surveillance wire-
taps, the authorizations, the memorandums that are prepared, tlie
reports and the indexes that are filed in connection therewith.
Senator Kennedy. You mean just because it was not, there wasn't
an indication or a mark on an official document, you let it go at that?
Mr. Gray. I don't know what 3^ou mean by a mark.
211
Senator Kennedy. Well, unless j^ou had some official designation-
that this was going on
Mr. Gray. That is correct.
Senator Kennedy (continuing). You didn't feel that you had t05
pursue it any further?
Mr. Gray. That is correct because, you know, Mr. Hoover is not
going to do something like this in the first place.
Senator Kennedy. I am not asking Mr. Hoover.
Mr. Gray. And in the second place
Senator Kennedy. I am asking about you.
Mr. Gray. In the second place, every one of these come across:
my desk, every single one and, in the third place, when I came into
the Federal Bureau of Investigation on May 3, the very first thing
that I said is, I will not permit any wiretaps that are not in accordance
with law. That is my answer, and that is what I have done. That is
what I have said repeatedly.
Senator Kennedy. Well, you have indicated that you reviewed
what wiretaps were authorized, and since any taps on the White
House didn't appear on that list, that is the extent of your investiga-
tion?
Mr. Gray. That is the extent of my investigation.
Senator Kennedy. You don't feel — let me ask a question.
Mr. Gray. Yes, sir.
Senator Kennedy. Did you feel that you ought to talk to anybody
at the White House about this?
Mr. Gray. The White House has already issued a denial, and the
ans^yer is no, Senator.
Senator Kennedy. You didn't talk to anybody at the White House?
Mr. Gray. No, sir; I did not; I have not.
Senator Kennedy. You didn't feel that you should, or had to^
because you had checked this other file in the FBI?
Mr. Gray. That is right. I looked at our records, the ones I work
with every day — these things come through all the time.
vSenator Kennedy. Did you talk with anybody in the Justice
Department about it?
Mr. Gray. I was advised — yes, I di<l — I was ad\'ised
Senator Kennedy. Whom did you talk to?
Mr. Gray. I talked to Jack Hushen, public information officer.
Senator Kennedy. Public information officer?
Mr. Gray. Yes; because he called me, and he said this has appeared
in Time magazine — I hadn't even seen it — "What do you know
about it?" And I said, "You had better start checking the records
in the Department of Justice and we will check the records in the
Federal Bureau of Investigation, and that has got to stop," and that
is all.
Senator Kennedy. Is he in the process of checking them now?
Mr. Gray. He reported to me later that the Assistant Attorney
General
wSenator Kennedy. When did he report to you?
Mr. Gray. Let me say that the date of this was March 5. Yes; it
came out before that — it came out on Monday — and I think he had
an advance on it, and I think he called me on the weekend, but I am
not sure about when he called me. Senator.
212
Senator Kennedy. Well, you didn't call him? He called 3'ou?
Mr. Gray. That is correct, because I had not seen it.
Senator Kennedy. What did he say to you?
Mr. Gray. He told me there is this article in Time, and he went
on to tell me what it alleges.
Senator Kennedy. Yes.
Mr. Gray. And that is when I told him that he be absolutely cer-
tain that he check and verify the records of the Department of
Justice maintained in the Internal Security Division, and I would be —
actually be — certain that our records were checked.
Senator Kennedy. And you didn't have any — that is the only
contact vou had with the Justice Department?
Mr. Gray. On this?
Senator Kennedy. On this issue.
Mr. Gray. Yes; I haven't talked to Assistant Attorney General
Olson on this at all. I have not discussed this with the Attorney
General at all.
Senator Kennedy. He called you even though it alleges in the
article that it was with Mr. — at some time he called you back — the
Public Information Officer called you back; is that right?
Mr. Gray. Yes, because it was in conjunction A\ith reading a press
release that he was going to put out, and t wanted him to be absolutely
•certain that he had made these checks with the Assistant Attorney
General in charge of the Internal Security Division.
Senator Kennedy. How manv conversations did you have?
Mr. Gray. Two.
Senator Kennedy. Two, and then he called a^ou back and said
there Avere none on the list?
Mr. Gray. That is right, when he was discussing the press release
Tie was going to put out.
Senator Kennedy. So do I gather the extent of your investigation
is a review of >'our own files, and a telephone call to the public informa-
tion officer of the Justice Department, and no one in the White House,
about the allegations and charges by Time magazine?
Mr. Gray. That is correct, because I had no formal complaint
there had been any
Senator Kennedy. I was listening to you earlier when you were
talking about how your Inspection Division follows up every single
■comi)laint that comes on out when it affects the FBI.
Mr. Gray. On one of us.
Senator Kennedy. But when a crime like this, and it is a crime.
Would it not be a crime?
Mr. Gray. If these acts were committed, certainly it is a felony;
no question about it, certainl^^
Senator Kennedy. But the extent of your investigation is, as I
stated, just a review of your own files, the files of the FBI, on what
A\iretaps had been authorized, and since you didn't see any approval
there, and after a routine call from the public information officer from
the Justice Department, you let that drop; is that correct?
Mr. Gray. I would not classify it as just a routine call. He was
quite upset when he read this article to me, and I am sure he w^as
speaking for the Attorney General. I am sure that there had been
discussion between the Attorney General and the Assistant Attorney
213
General in charge of the Internal Security Division where those re-
ports are made. I have to assume this — this is a normal t3'pe of pro-
cedure— and I did what I would do under these circumstances — I
checked our records and indexes.
Senator Kennedy. That is the sole extent of what you did?
Mr. Gray. That is correct, Senator Kennedy, that is exactly what
my testimony is.
Senator Kennedy. In your conversations with the Public Informa-
tion Officer of the Justice Department, did he indicate what the Jus-
tice Department was doing to try to find out whether this was true
or not?
Mr. Gray. Just told me.
Senator Kennedy. What?
Mr. Gray. He told me that the Assistant Attorney General in
charge of the Internal Security Division had checked his records and
indexes, and I told him we ought to be absolutely certain about it.
Senator Kennedy. You didn't think you ought to talk to the As-
sistant Attorney General?
Mr. Gray. No, I didn't.
Senator Kennedy. Why not?
Mr. Gray. Why not? The thought really never entered my mind I
would have to talk to him. I have to check the FBI records, that is
what I have to check.
Senator Kennedy. And you are satisfied with a public information
officer's comments that the Assistant Attorney General in charge of
this unit had nothing on that?
Mr. Gray. This was my contribution to the decisionmaking process
before the Attorney General gave the authorization to send out the
press release. I told him to make absolutely certain, to check those
Department of Justice records because records do exist.
Senator Kennedy. Wliy wouldn't you go to the man in charge
rather than the ])ressman?
Mr. Gray. The pressman reported it to me, and I went to my
people.
Senator Kennedy. Why wouldn't you go to the guy in charge in the-
Justice Department rather than the pressman?
Mr. Gray. I didn't have to go to the pressman; he came to me,.
Senator.
Senator Kennedy. And 3^ou never felt you had to follow up?
Mr. Gray. I testified that I did not feel that.
Senator Kennedy. Even to talk to the Assistant Attorney General
who, if these things were going on, would know the most about it, you
didn' t think 3^ou would have to get in touch with him?
Mr. Gray. I did not; no, sir.
Senator Kennedy. Or do any other kind of investigation?
Mr. Gray. No, sir; since I have been sitting in that chair, I have
been signing all the paperwork that is involved in these national
security taps, and since May
Senator Kennedy. This is a crime?
Mr. Gray. Of course, it is a crime.
Senator Kennedy. And you don't feel you had to do anything more
to review it?
Mr. Gray. No, sir.
214
Senator Kennedy. This is a serious allegation, it charged a crime,
and you didn't feel that you had to do anything more than receive a
call from
Mr. Gray. The proper place to make this charge, you know, is with
the U.S. attorney and not a magazine if there is any verity to it, Sena-
tor.
Senator Kennedy. Well, I don't know whether we would be as far
as we are now in the Watergate if we didn't have the press write about
it; wouldn't you agree with that?
Mr. Gray. I am not
Senator Kennedy. About these charges?
Mr. Gray (continuing) . I am not saying anything against the press
at all.
Senator Kennedy. And allegations?
Mr. Gray. And I further differ with you about your statement,
we would have been exactly where we are with or without the press
because from day 1, as I testified yesterday, I realized that the credi-
bility of the Federal Bureau of Investigation was at stake.
The Chairman. Wait a minute, let him finish his answer.
Mr. Gray. Let me finish my answer.
Senator Kennedy. That is a matter we can disagree on, too.
Mr. Gray. Sure, lots.
Senator Kennedy. But we can't disagree to the extent of the
investigation of a very serious allegation and charges about a serious
crime.
Mr. Gray. That is correct ; I checked the records and indexes of the
FBI.
Senator Kennedy. You checked the records?
Mr. Gray. I said that, Senator, and that is my testimony.
Senator Kennedy. OK.
Mr. Gray. All right.
Senator Kennedy. Let's go a little bit into the question of the
Segretti situation again.
As I understand it, at the hearings yesterda}' there was discussion
about the copies of various FBI materials shown, or made available,
to Mr. Segretti prior to his grand jury appearance in the Watergate
investigation, and, as I recall 3'our testimon}-, I believe you said that
no investigation was conducted of those allegations. That despite the
fact that these materials have been disseminated to the Justice Depart-
ment personnel and to assistant U.S. attorneys out in the field, and,
of course, I imagine presumably to your own agents, your own Bureau,
nothing was done to investigate those allegations or charges other than
a phone call to the White House?
Mr. Gray. Senator, we don't investigate unless we have a violation
of law. Our ground zero is found in our jurisdictional authoritj' , and
there is no violation of law, there is only a breach of trust if this
occurred. I don't know that it occurred, and if it occurred Segretti
was hearing what he had said himself.
Senator Kennedy. Well, I am interested in what steps were taken
to find out or track this down by the FBI?
Mr. Gray. I testified as to the steps.
Senator Kennedy. We are just going to take a little time.
One telephone call?
Mr. Gray. Yes, one telephone call.
215
Senator Kennedy. One telephone call.
Mr. Gray. That is correct.
Senator Kennedy. Did you ever think of talking to Mr. Segretti
■about how he got the information?
Mr. Gray. No, I did not because there was no need to do that. We
talked to Mr. Segretti on June 26 and on June 28, and we also showed
him on June 30 certain pictures trying to get him to identify them, and
he appeared before the grand jury on the 22d day of August, and the
information he gave at the grand jury was relayed on to our agents
by the assistant U.S. attorne}-^ conducting the grand jur3^ We insti-
tuted the investigations that were requested then, and that is the
fact of the matter.
Senator Kennedy. But 3^ou never asked him who gave him the
information?
Mr. Gray. No, I didn't, and no agent of the FBI asked him who
gave it to him because there is no violation of law. Senator. We just
•can't go around doing it.
Senator Kennedy. What do j'^ou do then?
Mr. Gray. We get harpooned when we do.
Senator Kennedy. What do you do when there is unrestricted
information or FBI leaks or whatever?
Mr. Gray. We try in many ways to ascertain how those leaks
■occur. I am not going to discuss publicly. Senator, how we try to do
it.
Senator Kennedy. Well, vou didn't in this case, though, did you,
Mr. Gray?
Mr. Gray. No, I did not. I did not.
Senator Kennedy. All right. How do you know that these leaks
■didn't take place within the FBI?
Mr. Gray. I don't.
Senator Kennedy. But yet you didn't feel that you even ought to
investigate the FBI?
Mr. Gray. No.
Senator Kennedy. What?
Mr. Gray. No; I did not.
•Senator Kennedy. Why not?
Mr. Gray. I had made the decision not to.
Senator Kennedy. W^hat was the basis?
Mr. Gray. There was no basis for it because there was no violation
•of law.
Senator Kennedy. Even if the FBI had leaked the material?
Aren't you interested in that?
Mr. Gray. We are interested in that, Senator.
Senator Kennedy. What did you do about it in this case?
Air. Gray. I did nothing about it.
Senator Kennedy. How do vou know it wasn't an FBI agent?
Mr. Gray. I don't know that it wasn't an FBI agent.
Senator Kennedy. Why didn't you do it?
Mr. Gray. Because I made a decision not to do it because it was
not of that imi)ort to me.
Senator Kennedy. What was not, the leak by the FBI?
Mr. Gray. There was no violation of law. Senator, I have tried to
rim down many, many leaks in the FBI and I don't run down every
one.
216
Senator Kennedy. This isn't a usual one, is it?
Mr. Gray. This is not an}^ more uniisuaL
Senator Kennedy. This is not a usual one?
Mr. Gray. It is not as bad as some of the others.
Senator Kennedy. How do you draw the line then? Which are the
bad ones you investigate and which are the ones that are not so bad
that you don't?
Mr. Gray. Again it is a judgment.
Senator Kennedy. This one didn't fall under the bad ones?
Mr. Gray. I did not investigate it; no.
Senator Kennedy. Not \\dthin the FBI, you did not investigate it?
Mr. Gray. No, didn't investigate it.
Senator Kennedy. You didn't think you ought to investigate and
try to find out whether any of the leaks had taken place in the U.S.
attorney's office?
Mr. Gray. I did not.
Senator Kennedy. And didn't think you ought to investigate it
with regard to the White House, other than a routine call, would j^ou
say?
Mr. Gray. I wouldn't classify it as a routine call.
Senator Kennedy, How would you classify it?
Mr. Gray. I got pretty angry.
Senator Kennedy. One call?
Mr. Gray. It wasn't, "Hello, John, how is it today."
Senator Kennedy. Well, tell us about it.
Mr. Gray. I testified about it yesterday.
Senator Kennedy. Tell us again,
Mr. Gray. I said, "I read the story, is there anj^ substance to it at
all?" And he said, "Absolutel}^ not. I did not even have any of the
reports with me in Miami."
Senator Kennedy. And so what did you sa}^?
Mr. Gray. I said, "All right, that is good enough for me, John"
and hung up.
Senator Kennedy. And that is the extent of it
Mr. Gray. That is the extent. Senator.
Senator Kennedy. You probably remember sometime ago there
was that Look magazine piece about Mayor Alioto, which led to a
libel suit, and we asked Mr. Rehnquist during the course of his testi-
mony— I believe Senator Ervin did — about some of the procedures
that were being followed about the leak to Look magazine, and he
said that the FBI had reported that, and here is what Mr. Rehnquist
said on page 604 of the hearings, part I:
The FBI reported that, after the institution of the libel suit by Mayor Alioto
against Look magazine, it received information that one of its San Francisco
agents had been a source of data for the controversial article. The agent acknowl-
edged that he had been in contact with one of the co-authors of the article and
had on various occasicnas given and confirmed information that ajjpeared in the
article. At no time were official files of the FBI furnished to Look, and the agent's
disclosures and confirmations of information were not made with FBI or other
Department of Justice authorization. Appropriate disciplinary action was taken
against the agent in question and he retired.
It seems the FBI was really willing to go after some apparent
leaks of material in that particular case but not with regard to the
Segretti case or the Watergate or however you want to call it.
Mr. Gray. I would have to differ with you, Senator. The cases
217
can be distinguished because there it was information that an agent
of the Federal Bureau of Investigation had been the source of the
leak. We have no information regarding am*one being the source of
this leak.
Senator Kennedy. Do you have to
Air. Gray. All we have is a statement in a newspaper.
Senator Kennedy. Just a statement in a newspaper?
Mr. Gray. That is right, sir. If I had had information that any
'One individual had been a source of that leak I would have investigated
it.
The Chairman. We will recess now until 2:15.
(Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the committee was recessed until
2:15 p.m. of the same day.)
afternoon session
. The Chairman. Let us have order.
Proceed, Senator Kenned}'.
Senator Kennedy. Thank a'ou, Air. Chairman.
We were revie^^"ing this morning, Mr. Gray, the followup actions
on behalf of yourself to the Time magazine allegations of wiretaps on
newsmen, and also the Segretti case, and I would like to move on to
a couple of other areas. But, perhaps, before doing so, I might just
follow u]) on the Time magazine allegation first.
I think earlier, and perhaps it is just a clarification for the record,
I think earlier this morning you indicated that after you had this call
from the Press Officer of the Justice Dei^artment, sometime over
the weekend, last weekend, you checked the indexes of the FBI to
see if there was in fact an}' wu'etapping of the White House. Is that
.correct?
TESTIMONY OF LOUIS PATEICK GRAY III— Resumed
Mr. Gray. That is right.
Senator Kennedy. And I think your testimoiw this morning was
to the effect that you didn't find an}' indication on the index?
Mr. Gray. That is correct, Senator.
Senator Kennedy. Well, did you gather, from any other sources,
information that would have led 3'ou to believe there mav have been?
Mr. Gray. I did not.
Senator Kennedy. You have no basis for the veracitv of that story
then?
Mr. Gray. Not in that particular, no, sir.
Senator Kennedy. Well, what do you mean b}' "in that particular"?
Mr. Gray. Well, the way it is written.
Senator Kennedy. Well
Mr. Gray. We have our records of national securitv surveillances,
3^ou know.
Senator Kennedy. That is correct.
;Mr. Gray. And this is what we checked, and we found no evidence
to thc^fiect that \ve were tapping any newsmen or any White House
personpel.
218
Senator Kennedy. Or court ordered surveillances?
Mr. Gray. Title III, organized crime?
Senator Kennedy. Yes.
Mr. Gray. I checked only the national security record. I didn't
check the Title III Organized Crime because every one of those is
issued by a judge, and I didn't think to check any of those because a
judge issues such an order under title III provisions. I did not check
title III.
Senator Kennedy. I see. But you have no indication then that either,
or you have no reason to believe that either from information that had
been made available to you or made available to top FBI agents that
this- — -
Mr. Gray. Had no reason to believe it.
Senator Kennedy (continuing). That this had taken place?
Mr. Gray. No, sir, I had no reason to believe that.
Senator Kennedy. Why didn't you check under title III?
Mr. Gray. Because every title III surveillance has got to be the
result of an order issued by a judge, and certainly a judge is not going
to be issuing an order in a national security surveillance area, and we
have got to demonstrate probable cause and all the rest of it. It is a
pretty thorough procedure and I didn't even think that title III \\as
involved here. We can check the title III and certainly will do that if
the Senator would wish us to do that.
Senator Kennedy. Would you?
Mr. Gray. I have no objection to that. Yes, sir, I would be happr
to.
(Mr. Gray subsequently submitted the following document for the
record :)
Mr. Gray. The FBI has never had any title III wiretaps on anyone at The
White House or any member of the press.
Senator Kennedy. On the Segretti case, and the leakages of the
FBI file, when you talked with Mr. Dean, I think you indicated the
conversation this morning, and perhaps could I bother you to review
it again with us here as you remember it?
Mr. Gray. Senator, you know I have put that on the record about
three times, and maybe four times. It is on the record and I will stand
by it. It is my testimom- under oath.
Senator Kennedy. I know you are going to stand by it under oath.
Mr. Gray. Sure, and I did. I made the telephone call to John Dean
and I hit the overhead and I was angr}" and I asked him if he had done
this thing and he said, "Absolutelv not. I was in Miami but I didn't
even have the FD-302's with me.''
Senator Kennedy. Sure. Was your question, to the best of your
memory, asking him whether he actually — ^—
Mr. Gray. I read the thing out of a newspaper to him, Senator, and
I said, "Did you do this?"
Senator Kennedy. Did you do what?
Mr. Gray. Do this. "Did 3'ou show this information to Segretti as
it is alleged to have occurred?" and he said, "Absolutely not, under no
circumstances. I did not have the FD-302's with me." I would like to
say for the record, too, if I may, that the Federal Bureau of Investiga-
219
tion interviewed Mr. Segretti on the 26th da}' of June, we interviewed
him
The Chairman. Speak a little louder.
Mr. Gray. I am sorry, sir. We interviewed Mr. Segretti on the
26th day of June, 1972, on the 28th day of June, 1972, and also on the
30th day of June, 1972, when we showed him a picture and asked him
to identify that individual. The onl}^ two reports of interviews that
we have from Mr. Segretti are on the 26th and the 28th of June. We
did not interview him two days })rior to August 19.
Senator Kennedy. Well now, he, as I understand, Mr. Dean indi-
cated that he himself did not leak the FBI report?
Mr. Gray. No, we didn't talk in terms of leak. Senator Kennedy.
Senator Kennedy. Well, how did he — I mean I am just trying to
understand a little better whether he said "I didn't show the FBI
report," that still leaves a pretty wide
Mr. Gray. No, he said, "I didn't even have them with me." He
said he did not.
Senator Kennedy. Could he have made some notes before or
copies and brought those with him?
Mr. Gray. I would doubt it very much. Senator Kennedy.
Senator Kennedy. Did you ask him
Mr. Gray. I didn't ask him.
Senator Kennedy. Whether he had passed on even any of the
information
Mr. Gray. No, I did not ask him.
Senator Kennedy (continuing). Anv of the information that was in
if'
Mr. Gray. No, sir; I did not ask him that.
Senator Kennedy. You just asked him whether he had shown the
re])ort to Mr. Segretti?
Mr. Gray. In fact, this was the allegation when I read it, and I
read it to him out of the paper that morning.
Senator Kennedy. Did you ask him whether he had seen Segretti?
Mr. Gray. No, I did not.
Senator Kennedy. Do 3^ou know whether he saw Mr. Segretti?
Mr. Gray. No, I do not, sir.
Senator Kennedy. At one point while you were investigating the
Watergate case, there were allegations in the press that a former Assist-
ant Attorney General, Mr. Mardian, after he left the Justice Depart-
ment and joined the Committee To Reelect the President, either
ordered or was in some way involved in the destruction of relevant
documents at the Committee To Reelect. Could you tell us what
investigation, if an}', the FBI conducted into those allegations?
Mr. Gray. We endeavored to interview Mr. Mardian, and we did
interview him on July 17, 1972, and he claimed the attorney-client
privilege and said no more to us.
Senator Kennedy. He what?
Mr. Gray. He claimed the attorney-client privilege with regard to
his role with the principal, this is what we were interviewing him about.
Senator Kennedy. Well, who was his client?
Mr. Gray. I will have to take a look at the specific inter\-iew sheet.
I will get the interview sheet, the' FD-302, and provide the answer. I
220
.don't remember. I think he claimed that he had advised Mr. Stans and
Mr. Mitchell.
Senator Kennedy. So he didn't respond any further?
Mr. Gray. That is my recollection, Senator, but I want to check the
actual interview sheet.
Senator Kennedy. But you accepted his claim of lawyer-client
relationship?
Mr. Gray. Senator, 3'ou know we have a point beyond which we
cannot go.
Senator Kennedy. I am just asking you did you accept it?
Mr. Gray. We tried to get whatever information we could from him.
Senator Kennedy. And he said that it was a lawyer-client relation-
ship?
Mr. Gray. This is my best recollection.
wSenator Kennedy. And you accepted that?
Mr. Gray. He was interviewed on July 17, 1972, at which time he
stated he would furnish no information relative to this matter. He
invoked an attornej'-client relationship with respect to Maiuice Stans,
George Gordon Liddv, and Hugh Sloan, stating he had counseled each
one of those individuals and that is what our FD-302 would show.
Senator Kennedy. He had counseled which individuals?
Mr. Gray. Those three individuals, the ones I read: Stans, Liddy,
Sloan.
Senator Kennedy. Is his position that he had counseled them before
the destruction?
Mr. Gray. That is what — no, I am not going to get into the destruc-
tion aspect. I am not looking at the 302. His position as reflected there
was he had counseled them.
wSenator Kennedy. For any period of time, or for how long a period?
Mr. Gray. It doesn't say in that statement.
Senator Kennedy. Did you ask him?
Mr. Gray. I don't know. Senator. I will have to look at the 302.
(Mr. Gray subsequently submitted the following document for the
record :)
Mr. Gray. After a review of the record, Senator Kennedy, I find that Mr.
Mardian advised our Agents that he had, in the capacity of ari attorney rather
than as an employer, spoken to Mr. Liddy, Mr. Stans and Mr. Sloan, and as such,
he could not divulge either the nature or the substance of his conversations with
those men. It is my understanding that the attorney-client privilege which he was
invoking is a continuing one and exists imtil revoked by the client. Our Agents did
not ask Mr. Mardian how long a period of time this privilege would be claimed.
Senator Kennedy. Who else did 3^ou interview about those alleged
destructions of the files?
Mr. Gray. We interviewed quite a few people. Once again, I will
have to go to the 302's to find which of them were asked specific
questions regarding any destruction of files.
(Mr. Gray subsequently submitted the following document for the
record :)
Mr. Gray. After checking, I find that there are two situations in which records
at the Committee to Reelect the President were allegedly destroyed. The first of
these relates to financial records of contribiitions before April 7, 1972, when the
new Disclosure Act took effect. The second involved alleged destruction of records
at the Committee offices after the arrests of the five men at the Democratic Head-
quarters on June 17, 1972. Our Agents contacted a number of people at the
Committee concerning these points and during the Federal grand jury inquiry a
221
number of people were also questioned concerning the records destruction. Those
questioned included Jeb Magruder, Herbert Porter, Maurice Stans, Hugh Sloan,
Paul Barrick, Lee Nunn, Sally Harmony, Judith Hoback, Robert Odle, Robert
Houston, Sylvia Panarites, Millicent Gleason and Martha Duncan.
Senator Kennedy. Do you remember whether you talked to Fred-
erick LaRue? His name was mentioned in this.
Mr. Gray. I believe Mr. LaRue was interviewed.
Senator Kennedy. Could you tell us when?
Mr. Gray. Yes, he was interviev.ed on July 18, 1972, and again in
more detail on July 21, 1972.
Senator Kennedy. Did you ask him about the destruction of files?
]NIr. Gray. I am goino; to have to answer that one specifically; I
will have to go to the 302 to see the detailed report of interview,
Senator, and I will do that.
The Chairman. Of course, that is not the question. Did you ask
him? Did you interview him?
Mr. Gray. No, I cUdn't interview him; the Federal Bureau of
Investigation — a special agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation
interviewed him.
Senator Kennedy. What can you tell us, then — I would be inter-
ested if you could tell us about the results of that interview — but
what can you tell us about the interview into the allegations of the
destruction of files by Mr. Mardian; v.diat can you tell us?
Mr. Gray. I am going to provide it for the record, Senator, be-
cause there are so many persons we interviewed, with so many leads
and so many witnesses, that I can't possibly make any pretense that
I can remember exactly who, you know. I could try to recollect, but
that is dangerous. I would much rather be sure and be specific and
be precise.
(Mr. Gray subsequently submitted the following document for the
record :)
Mr. Gray. I find, Senator Kennedy, upon checking the records, that Mr.
INIardian, who vvas Special Assistant to the Campaign Manager for the Committee
to Reelect the President, was interviewed on July 17, 1972, at the request of
Assistant U.S. Attorney Earl Silbert regarding his knowledge of the activities of
Sloan and Liddy while they worked for the Committee to Reelect the President.
There was no allegation that Mr. Mardian had any information regarding the
destruction of records. In addition, Mr. Mitchell advised us on July 5, 1972,
that Mr. Mardian was with him at a political meeting in California from June 16
through June 20, 1972. Liddy 's alleged destruction of records took place on June
17, 1972. In addition, Mr. LaRue was not interviewed regarding destruction of
records as there was no allegation that he had any such information. Mr. LaRue
was interviewed on two occasions, July 18 and 21, 1972, as I mentioned above
but these interviews dealt with matters other than the destruction of records.
Senator Kennedy. That is the way it should be, obviously. Can
you tell us whether there actually was, as a result of the investigation.,
destruction of those files?
Mr. Gray. Can I tell you that there was destruction of those files?
We had allegations to that effect, and statements to that effect made
to us by individuals that we mterviewed; yes, sir, I think I can say
that; yes, indeed.
Senator Kennedy. Would that be a crime?
Mr. Gray. I don't know.
Senator Kennedy. What does your legal counsel say, if this was
Mr. Gray. I didn't specifically ask that question of him, because
all during the conduct of this investigation we were working hand in
91-3.31—73 15
222
glove \\dtli the assistant U.S. attorney. If at any time an assistant
U.S. attorney thought we were uncovering evidence of a crime, he
Avould have pointed us in that direction rtsgardless of what I wanted to
do, Senator.
Senator Kennedy. Wliat did you want to do?
Mr. Gray. I said regardless of what I wanted to do.
Senator Kennedy. Did he ever indicate to you that he thought
that there was a possible crime?
Mr. Gray. No, I don't recall that specifically; and what I wanted
to do from day 1, as we say in the FBI, was to give it a full court press
with no holds barred and investigate to the hilt, and I believe we did.
Senator Kennedy. Well now, but you had reason to believe that
this could have been a crime, may have been a crime?
Mr. Gray. No, I don't; no, I don't. I am not testifying to that
effect at all. Senator. I want to look at the facts and the circumstances,
and I want to look at the possible statutes that are applicable before I
give A^ou an answer to that question, sir.
(Mr. Gray subsec^uently submitted the following document for the
record :)
Mr. Gray. I have had this matter researched, Senator Kennedy, and I have
been informed that if destruction of files is brought about by briber}-, misrepre-
sentation, intimidation, or force or threats thereof it could constitute a violation
of Title IS, U.S. Code, Section 1.510 (Obstruction of Criminal Investigations).
However, in the absence of the elements listed (V:)ribery, etc.) the act of destruc-
tion by an individual having lawful possession would not appear to be a crime
unless the files were specifically protected by a statute or the destruction was
the last step in a continuing criminal conspiracy (Title 18, U.S. Code, Section
371) to violate other substantive Federal laws and to avoid detection.
An example of statutory record-keeping requirements is foimd in the Federal
Election Campaign Act of 1971, Title III of which requires keeping detailed and
exact records of all contributors, the name and address of contributors, and all
expenditures made by political committees covered by the statute. It should be
noted that this statute became effective on April 7, 1972.
Senator Kennedy. But at least you did haA^e reports from your
inA^estigators that such destruction had taken place based upon their
inA^estigation?
Mr. Graa". I read in some reports, Senator, I belie A^e it was one
individual or ma3^be two who stated to us that there had been a
destruction of files A\ithin the Committee To Reelect the President,
yes, sir, but I can't recall specifically which person. I read that in a
rather large stream of 302's and telet3^pes that came across ni}^
desk.
(Mr. Gra}^ siibsec[uentlA' submitted the following document for the
record :)
Mr. Gray. After checking, I find that there are two situations in which records
at the Committee to Reelect the President were allegedly destroyed. The first of
these relates to financial records of contributions before April 7, 1972, when the
new Disclosure Act took effect. The second involved alleged destruction of records
at the Committee offices after the arrests of the five men at the Democratic
Headquarters on June 17, 1972.
Senator Kennedy. And did they allege that Mardian had been
invoh^ed?
Mr. Graa'. No, sir; I recall no such allegation as that. But I want
to check the record and giA'e a'ou an accurate report before I state
under oath that he Avas not.
223
Senator Kennedy. Or Mr. LaRue?
Mr. Gray. No, sir; I don't believe any mention was ever made of
Mr. LaRue in this context, but I will check the 302's and verify it.
(Mr. Gray subsequently submitted the following document for the
record :)
Mr. Gray. As 1 indicated previously, there was no allegation that Mr. Mardian
had anj^ information regarding destruction of records at the Committee to Reelect
the President. With respect to Mr. LaR.ue, we interviewed him on Jul.v 18, and
21, 1972, upon the request of Mr. Silbert, to determine his knowledge of the
activities of Sloan and Liddy. There was no allegation that Mr. LaRue par-
ticipated in or had any information concerning destruction of records and, in
fact, when we interviewed Mr. Mitchell, he stated that Mr. LaRue as well as
several other officials of the Committee were in California over the weekend of
June 17 when records at the Committee were allegedly destroyed by Mr. Liddj'.
Senator Kennedy. Wliere does that lie now, that investigation, the
investigation of destruction of the records?
Mr. Gray. The Watergate investigation itself?
Senator Kennedy. No; just the destruction of the records.
Mr. Gray. The destruction is a part of the total investigation, and
I would have to ask the Assistant U.S. Attorney and the Department
of Justice where we are on that right now because we have not been
pushed in that area.
Senator Kennedy. You have not been what?
Mr. Gray. Pardon, sir?
Senator Kennedy. You have not been what in that area?
Mr. Gray. Pushed, directed, guided in that area, to the best of m}'
knowledge at this moment — but I will ascertain the facts.
Senator Kennedy. Could this not be considered as an obstruction
of justice if the records were actually destroyed?
Air. Gray. I doubt it because I think what you are talking about — if
you are talking about the same records that I have a recollection
of — 3^ou are talking about those that were compiled prior to April 7,
and I know •
Senator Kennedy. How do you know?
Mr. Gray. Wliat?
Senator Kennedy. How do you know?
Mr. Gray. I don't know.
Senator Kennedy. Why are you assuming that?
Mr. Gray. Well, I assume that these are the ones you are talking
about, because I know as a fact that after April 7, new records were
started. I specificalh^ asked that question myself and I do recall that,
and I can testif}" under oath to that effect.
Senator Kennedy. Was that the question that was asked Mr. Mar-
dian, whether it was just records before the April period?
Mr. Gray. That is mj recollection, that we were dealing with
records prior, of contributions and disbursements prior to April 7.
(Mr. Gray subsequently submitted the follo^\^ng document for the
record :)
Mr. Gray. Senator, at this time I would like to state that Mr. Mardian was
not questioned concerning what records existed prior to April, 1972, nor was he
questioned concerning any destruction of records. The investigation did not de-
velop any allegation that Mr. Mardian had been involved in the destruction of
records.
224
Senator Kennedy. Well, I am not sure that that was particularly
the newspaper allegation, was it?
Mr. Gray. I don't know the newspaper allegations.
Senator Kennedy. Why did you just ask them then
Mr. Gray. Why did I do what?
Senator Kennedy. If you ^^dll wait for the question. What specific
questions did you ask him besides which records had been destroyed
before April? Did you ask liim whether any records that came after
April had been destroyed, or any other records that dealt mth the
alleged Watergate incident?
Mr. Gray. No, I think my notations were to the effect of what
records were maintained, what records are our interviewees telling
us were destroyed, and what is the present condition of records at the
Committee to Re-Elect the President. That is ni}- best recollection of
the questions that I asked at the time, Senator.
Senator Kennedy. Who destroj^ed them, if they were destroyed?
]Mr. Gray. Oh, yes, we would want to know that.
Senator Kennedy. One other area. Mr. Segretti. As I understand,
Mr. Gray, Donald Segretti was interviewed during your investigation;
is that correct? You have indicated that, given us the dates?
Mr. Gray. Yes, I gave j^ou the dates — the 26th of June, 1972,
the 28th of June, 1972, and also we saw him on the 30th of June in
an effort to get liim to identify pictures. Senator.
Senator Kennedy. Could you tell us vvh}^ he was investigated?
Mr, Gray. Why he was investigated?
Senator Kennedy. Yes.
Mr. Gray. He turned up, his telephone num.ber turned up, as I
recollect. He was one of those telephone numbers that we ran down.
This was my recollection. I would like to check my records to make
sure I am correct, though.
(Mr. Gray subsequently submitted the following document for the
record :)
i\Ir. Gray. After reviewing the records, Senator, I find that my recollection
was correct and that we conducted investigation concerning Mr. Segretti because
a review of the telephone toll records of Mr. Hunt's calls had showed numerous
phone calls between Hunt and Segretti.
Senator Kennedy. My recollection
Mr. Gray. It is.
Senator Kennedy. Yes.
Mr. Gray. Then we are in agreement.
Senator Kennedy. Do you remember what he — there was some
inter\dcw with him then, on June 26, and on the 28th; is that correct?
]Mr. Gray. Yes, sir.
Senator Kennedy. And do you know whether he indicated that
Hunt had asked him — what Mr. Hunt had asked him to do?
Mr. Gray. No. There is a little note here that I made, that he
refused to give us any names, dates, or places at all. He was not too
cooperative and helpful.
Senator Kennedy. He was uncooperative?
Mr. Gray. That is right, in the sense of giving us names, dates, and
places. He talked to us once we contacted him, but he did not give
us names, dates, and places. But this later, we are advised, came out
at the Federal Grand Jury. I would hke not to get into that.
225
Senator Kennedy. Wliat other investigations were conducted on
T».'Ir. Segretti, other than the two inter\iews on the 26th and 28th,
do YOU know?
Mr. Gray. I am not really sure I understand that question. We
were not investigating him for anything other than his involvement,
if any, in this I()C situation at the Democratic national headquarters.
Senator Kennedy. Were his telephone toll cards obtained?
Mr. Gray. I believe that they were; yes, sir.
Senator Kennedy. Why were his toll cards obtained?
Mr. Gray. I think we probably wanted to see to whom Segretti
could lead us. We obtained an awful lot of toll calls. As I recall, there
were 2,200 of them, not from Segretti, though, but from all the people
involved in this investigation as interviewees or as principals.
Senator Kennedy. Who did they lead to?
Mr. Gray. I don't recall with that specificit}^. Senator.
Senator Kennedy. Would there be any names on there — would you
remember them?
Mr. Gray. No; I wouldn't. I would have to provide that for the
record for you. Senator. I just don't remember that.
(Mr. Gray subsequently submitted the following document for the
record :)
IMr. Gray. Our records show that during the period of time we felt was pertinent
and checked, from about August, 1971 to June, 1972, there were about 700 calls
charged to Mr. Segretti. The investigating Agents screened these calls to try
to pinpoint those which M^ould appear to involve the Watergate subjects (Hunt,
Liddy, McCord, Barker, Martinez, Fiorini and Gonzalez). We also looked for
calls to the Committee to Reelect the President, Committee to Reelect the
President people, the White House, White House people, or calls which might
show Segretti was in contact with Hunt or Liddy during their travels. The greater
majority of these calls did not appear to relate to the people involved in the
Watergate incident. We did learn that Mr. Segretti was in touch with the published
telephone number of the White House on several occasions; with hotels in Miami,
Washington, D.C., and Chicago; with Mr. Dwight Chapin's residence; and with
Mr. Hunt, both at his office and at his residence.
Senator Kennedy. Were his bank records obtained, too?
Mr. Gray. I think we did but I am not sure on that. May I provide
that for you, too. I know that as a result of — I can tell you what we
did as a result of the Federal Grand Jur}^, but I am getting m3^self
into difficulty here.
(Mr. Gray subsequently submitted the following docimient for
the record :)
Mr. Gray. The records show that we did examine Mr. Segretti's bank accounts
and access to the accounts was gained through issuance of a Federal grand jury
subpoena.
Senator Kennedy. Now, as I understand, both the telephone records
and the bank records were obtained, is that correct?
Mr. Gray. I believe vve did. I believe we did, because I didn't put
any restrictions on them. The investigators did what was normal and
standard, and I am sure I am right but I want to be specific and precise
on it.
Senator Kennedy. Now, was Mr. Kalmbach interviewed?
Mr. Gray. Yes, sir, he was.
Senator Kennedy. Why was he interviewed?
Mr. Gray. Well, that goes to the Federal Grand Jury,
226
Senator Kennedy. I am sorry
Mr. Gray. Well, we had information — you know, I am going to
get nwself into trouble with Judge Sirica because I know why we
went to Mr. ICalmbach and I know where the information came from
but I have got a problem here with it.
Senator Kennedy. Other than the Grand Jurj^, can 3'ou tell us
what questions he was asked b}" the investigators?
Mr. Gray. Mr. Kalmbach?
Senator Kennedy. Yes.
Mr. Gray. No, I would have to go to the 302's and give j^ou that
specifically, which I am perfectly willing to do, and tell you exactly
what he told us and how he told us, just what the text is there in that
302.
(Mr. Gra}^ subsequently^ submitted the following document for the
record :)
Mr. Gray. After checking the records, I have found that Mr. Kalmbach was
interviewed on September 4, 1972, at Los Angeles. This interview was conducted
at the request of Assistant U.S. Attorney Silbert, who directed the grand jury
inquiry. Mr. Silbert wanted us to find from Mr. Kalmbach details concerning
]:)ayments of money to Segretti such as how much was paid, where the money came
from and whether rejjorts were made by Segretti. Mr. Kalmlmch said that in
either August or September, 1971, he was contacted by Mr. D wight Chapin and
was informed that Captain Donald Henry Segretti was about to get out of the
military service and that he may be of service to the Republican Party. Mr. Chapin
asked Mr. Kalmbach to contact Segretti in this regard but Mr. Kalmbach said he
was not exactly sure what service Chaj^in had in mind other than he believed he
would be of service to the Republican Party. He said he did not press Chapin in
this regard. He did contact Segretti and agreed that Segretti would be i)aid
$16,000 per year plus expenses and he paid Segretti somewhere between $30,000
and $40,000' between September 1, 1971, and March 15, 1972. Mr. Kalmbach
said lie maintained no records of expenditures to Segretti and said he never received
any written or verbal i*eports from Segretti. He said he was very rarely contacted
by Segretti and believes he only met him personally on two occasions, the dates
of which he could not recall. He said he merely acted as a disbursing agent for
Segretti's salary and expenses and he has no idea how Segretti received his in-
structions or whom he reported to.
Mr. Kalmbach was asked whether he had to account to anyone for his expendi-
tuies to Segretti and said he did not have to account to an.yone. He was asked
how much was in the funds he used to pay Segretti and he did not answer this
question. He said on one occasion he gave Segretti $5,000 and subseqiientl.y
$20,000 to cover Segretti's expenses. He said he had no knowledge of what SegTctti
was doing to justify these expenses or to earn his salary. He said the money he
used to pay Segretti came out of campaign funds that were obtained from con-
tributors prior to April 7, 1972. He said although he usually paid Segretti in cash,
an occasional check may have been written. He stated he did not have any
information pertaining to the burglary of the Democratic Headquarters and could
fiu'nish no information concerning that matter. He said he does not know Hunt
but had learned of his involvement in this matter from the media. He stated he
was accjuainted with Liddy but had only limited contact with Liddy. Such contacts
took place in connection with Liddy's work as legal counsel to the Finance Com-
mittee to Reelect the President. He was asked if he had anj' knowledge of McCord
and he stated he never had any dealings with McCord and only met him on one
occasion at the Finance Committee to Reelect the President in Washington, D.C.,
at wliich time McCord identified himself to Kalmbach as the security officer for
the Committee.
Senator Kennedy. And Mr. Chapin, did 3^ou interview Mm?
Mr. Gray. Yes, we did. Senator.
Senator Kennedy. Wh}' did you interview Mr. Chapin?
Mr. Gray. That also stems from the Grand Jur}^, and there is a
possibility here, which is subject to my verification, that tlie}^ were
on the toll call records, and that Donald Segretti had telephoned
227
these men. There is that possibiHty but I can't remember ^\^th enough
certainty to state it.
wSenator Kennedy. Did you intervie^Y everyone that Mr. Segretti
had called?
Mr. Gray. The Federal Bureau of Investigation?
Senator Kennedy. Yes.
Mr. Gray. No, sir; there ^vould have been a selective screening at
the case agent and field supervisor}' level and they \vould have done
that themselves. I AYOuld not have interfered, though. I \vould not
have said, "Don't do this or don't do that." I turned them loose.
Senator Kennedy. What is the basis of the screening?
ISIr. Gray. It is basically to save manpoAver and get your most
probable parties first.
Senator Kennedy. IIo^v do 3'ou decide which ones vou are going to
get?
Mr. Gray. The case agents from the knowledge of the case and the
total buildup of the statement pattern as it is being developed,
discuss this among themselves and their supervisors and they begin
to zero in. In these investigations one thing leads to another. It is
that type of situation.
Senator Kennedy. Why would Kalmbach and Chapin be on the
list of the interviewed and some others not be?
Mr. Gray. I think it was a natural and probable consequence b}^
that time.
Senator Kennedy. Why?
Mr. Gray. Because it was certainly an obvious conclusion to be
drawn by anybody that these would be people who should be inter-
viewed, because of some of the allegations that were made once
again in the Federal Grand Jury.
Senator Kennedy. Did you ever talk to Chapin's boss?
Mr. Gray. Who is that, sir?
Senator Kennedy. Mr. Haldeman.
Mr. Gray. Mr. Haldeman, no, sir, we did not.
Senator Kennedy. Did anybody that you know of in the FBI talk
to him?
Mr. Gray. No, sir, I know of no one from the FBI who talked to
Mr. Haldeman. I know of no one in the FBI who sent out a lead to
talk to Mr. Haldeman and I know of no one in the FBI who recom-
mended that we talk to Mr. Haldeman, and when I asked these very
same questions in our skull sessions
Senator Kennedy. You asked the same questions?
Mr. Gray (continuing). I asked those very same questions in our
skull sessions.
Senator Kennedy. Why did you ask them?
Mr. Gray. Why did I ask them? Because once again I wanted to
leave no stone unturned.
Senator Kennedy. You think if they asked Mr. Chapin's boss that
some stone might have been turned?
Mr. Gray. I doubt it very much because we have no indication
in the total statement pattern, the total evidentiary pattern of devel-
opment of this investigation to indicate that he was involved. We did
interview Air. Ehrlichman, so the natural conclusion has got to be
drawn, Senator, that if we had thought, if any of my investigators
228
had thought that Mr. Haldeman should hare been interviewed such
a recommendation would have been made, such a lead would have been
carried through.
Senator Kennedy. But the thought came through your mind
though, did it not, about interviewing Mr. Chapin's boss about what
acti\^ties Mr. Chapin
Mr. Gray. This is when we were preparing for this confirmation.
Senator Kennedy (continuing). It is not an unusual thought to
have, is it?
Mr. Gray. No, it isn't an unusual thing under the circumstances.
I asked it and I checked it out when we were going through our skull
sessions in preparing for these confirmation hearings.
Senator Kennedy. It might have been?
Mr. Gray. I did not ask it during the conduct of the investigation,
however.
Senator Kennedy. But you did ask it during the skull sessions?
Mr. Gray. Sure because I knew this would be a question that
would be asked me and one I would have to answer.
Senator Kennedy. Wliat would have been the type of thing you
might have been looldng for with Mr. Haldeman, what Mr. Chapin's
duties were?
Mr. Gray. No.
Senator Kennedy. Wliat sort of thing?
Mr. Gray. Any participation, guidance, dhection, involvement in
the IOC. That was the criminal matter that we had under investiga-
tion.
Senator Kennedy. Limited only to that?
Mr. Gray. Sir?
Senator Kennedy. Limited onty to that?
Mr. Gray. Yes, sh. That is correct.
Senator Kennedy. Did Haldeman have access to the FBI reports?
Air. Gray. I cannot answer that question because I do not know
the answer.
Senator Kennedy. Well, to your own knov,dedge, you don't know
whether he had, he ever had access to it?
Mr. Gray. No, I have to testify that I do not know.
Senator Kennedy. Could you find that out, would there be a way
of your finding that out?
Mr. Gray. Oh, yes, I think there probabl}^ would be a way of
fuiding that out. I would ask him.
Senator Kennedy. Would you do that?
Mr. Gray. Yes, sir, I would.
(Mr. Gra}^ subsequently submitted the following document for the
record :)
Mr. Gray. I contacted Mr. Haldeman on Friday, March 2, 1973, and IMr.
Haldeman stated he did not have access to the FBI reports in this matter.
Senator Kennedy. I have some other areas; what waj would vou
like to proceed. Air. Chairman?
I have some other areas. Do you want me to proceed now? I would
like to, if I could. Unless other members of the committee are inter-
ested in askhig some questions now, what I would like to do is to talk
a httle bit about procedures within the FBI. Air. Gray has indicated
229
an interest in opening up and talking a bit about that. I have some
questions in those areas that I will be glad to start in on.
The Chairman. Senator Mathias wanted to ask some questions.
Senator Kennedy. All right.
The Chairman. About how long have you got?
Senator Matkias. Air. Chairman, I wouldn't take more than 10
minutes, 15 at the outside.
The Chair?,ian. After you conclude suppose we go over to Tuesday
morning.
Senator Kennedy. After Senator Mathias?
Senator Tunney. What time in the morning?
The Chairiman. 10:30 Tuesday morning.
Senator Bayh. Mr. Chau-man, I am not going to be here Tuesday
morning and I have a few questions I would like to ask the witness if
it would be possible.
The Chairman. How much time?
Senator Bayh. I don't thmk it would take more than couple of
minutes.
The Chairman. I am going to be on a j^lane in a few minutes.
[Laughter.]
Senator Bayh. I will try my best.
The Chairman. Call A'our campaign off and attend to your job.
[Laughter.]
Senator Bayh. I would be glad to tr}' my best to carry the mantle
of the temporary chairmanship in extenso if the Chair will permit me,
and I promise not to
[Laughter.]
Senaitor Tunney. Mr. Chairman, I also am not going to be here on
Tuesday, and I also have abovit 15 minutes of additional cpiestions
that I would like to ask.
Senator Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, would it make sense to have,
after we have all had an opportunity- to examine the material, have
INIr. Gray come back up? I am sure I have other
The Chairman. That is something that the committee is going to
have to determine. The Chairman can't determine it.
Senator Kennedy. Won't Mr. Gray be coming back after we have
had a chance to examine the material anyway, if any member of the
committee would want to question him?
The Chairman. I would think that would be what the committee
would decide.
Senator Kennedy. ALaybe that would be better.
Senator Mathias. Mr. Chairman, could I have the floor?
The Chairman. Proceed.
Senator Mathias. Mr. Gray, as you know, there has been consider-
able interest in the National Crime Information Center, its size, and
its utility as a crime fighting, law enforcement service and device.
The Chairman. Suppose we adjourn at 4:15 until 10:30 Tuesday
morning. That gives Senator Bayh 15 minutes.
Senator Tunney. Where does that leave me.
The Chairman. It leaves you out. (Laughter.)
I am not going to stay around here all afternoon. Proceed.
Senator Mathias. As you know, there has been considerable in-
terest in the National Crime Information Center, its size, its utility
as a crime-fighting and law-enforcement device, its effect on personal
rights to privacy, and all of this area.
230
Despite the NCIC's national importance and the nationwide in-
terest in its potential, there is, in fact, very Httle, if any, legislative
base for it. We, in Congress, never really have set statutory standards
for its development and for its operation, for the philosophy with
which its activities are conducted, and the statutory base that does
exist is a precomputer concept.
Now, what I am wondering is whether you would be willing to co-
operate with the Congress in a serious and announced effort to provide
a statutory basis for the NCIC, and to the related facilities.
What I'have in mind is a basis that will serve as a guide, and as a
foundation upon which we could build the kind of broad public
confidence that this part of your activities should have.
Mr. Gray. Senator Mathias, I, too, share the feehng that all of
the many 
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11